You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

BANK NOT LIABLE FOR PAYMENT RE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF BUT ALTERED BY PLAINTIFF’S BOOKKEEPER TO PAY OFF HER CREDIT CARD BILLS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant bank (Citibank) and Citi Credit were not liable for cashing checks which were signed by plaintiff but which were altered by plaintiff’s bookkeeper to pay off her credit card bills. Plaintiff was notified of the fraud by Citibank:

Citibank’s actual knowledge of the fraud in February 2016 is, at this pleading stage, enough to sustain the claim of commercial bad faith that would render Citibank ineligible for the protection of UCC 3-405(1)(c) … , i.e., the “fictitious payee” or “padded payroll” defense … .

… UCC 3-405(1)(c) bars plaintiffs’ claims against Citi Credit. Nowhere in any of their papers — either the complaint or Dr. Weiser’s opposition affidavit — do plaintiffs allege other than conclusorily that Citi Credit, like Citibank a subsidiary of defendant Citigroup, Inc., had actual knowledge of the fraud. …

Although plaintiffs’ claims against Citibank are not barred by UCC 3-405(1)(c), they are barred by plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy a condition precedent to suit created by UCC 4-406(4) and Citibank’s checking account rules and regulations as set forth in its CitiBusiness Client Manual … . Plaintiffs failed, as required by the manual, to “notify us [Citibank] in writing within 30 days after we send or make available to you [plaintiffs] your account statement and accompanying items of any errors, discrepancies, or unauthorized transactions.” Weiser v Citigroup, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06440, First Dept 9-3-19

 

, ,

A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO EXPUNGE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER’S DNA RECORDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court determined: (1) the Executive Law pertains to the local DNA databank maintained by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME); (2) an Article 78 mandamus action seeking the expungement of the petitioner-youthful-offender’s (YO’s) DNA records from the databank was properly brought; and (3) a judge has the discretion to expunge a YO’s DNA records. The petitioner voluntarily provided a DNA sample before he was adjudicated a youthful offender. Supreme Court had held it did not have the discretion to expunge the records:

… [W]e hold that the same discretion afforded to a court under the Executive Law to expunge DNA profiles and related records when a conviction is vacated may also be exercised where, as here, a YO disposition replaces a criminal conviction. The motion court, in finding that, as a matter of law, it had no discretion, failed to fulfill its statutory mandate to consider whether in the exercise of discretion, expungement of petitioner’s DNA records was warranted in this case. * * *

A YO disposition by its very nature is a judgment of conviction that is vacated and then replaced by a YO determination. This conclusion is supported by the mechanics of the YO statute, its salutary goals, and legislative intent. * * *

Petitioner did not, either expressly or by implication, waive the privilege of nondisclosure and confidentiality by providing his DNA before the court made its determination that he was eligible for YO status. Clearly the Executive Law permits an adult who has voluntarily given his or her DNA in connection with a criminal investigation the right to seek discretionary expungement where a conviction had been reversed or vacated. A youthful offender does not have and should not be afforded fewer pre-YO adjudication protections than an adult in the equivalent circumstances. Matter of Samy F. v Fabrizio, 2019 NY Slip Op 06374, First Dept 8-27-19

 

, ,

LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WERE ISSUED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE SIX MONTHS ALLOWED BY CPLR 205 (a) TO REFILE A DISMISSED ACTION, THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ARGUMENT THAT SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG DATE TO CALCULATE THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD PROPERLY RAISED AND CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice/wrongful death action should not have been dismissed because the letters of administration were issued within six months of the prior dismissal. The argument that Supreme Court used the wrong date to calculate the six-month period for re-filing a lawsuit pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) could be raised for the first time on appeal:

On appeal, plaintiff argues for the first time that the prior action was finally terminated when the October 2016 order granting the hospital’s motion was issued, so that the court used the wrong date to calculate when the six-month savings period under CPLR 205(a) began to run. We will consider this argument, since it raises a legal question appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided … .

While plaintiff, as voluntary administrator, lacked the legal capacity to enforce decedent’s personal injury and wrongful death claims on behalf of the estate in this second action (Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 1306[3] … ), he could remedy this defect by obtaining letters of administration within the six-month savings period provided under CPLR 205(a) … . In applying CPLR 205(a), we bear in mind that it is designed to ameliorate the potentially “harsh consequence of applying a limitations period where the defending party has had timely notice of the action” … . Because the first action was finally terminated on October 18, 2016, and the letters of administration were issued on April 18, 2017, on the last day of the six-month savings period (CPLR 205[a]), plaintiff timely obtained legal capacity to pursue the claims in this action … . Rodriguez v River Val. Care Ctr., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06370, First Dept 8-27-19

 

, , ,

THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PLACING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON EXPRESSIVE MATTER VENDORS IN CITY PARKS ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined that the restrictions placed on expressive matter vendors’ (EMV’s) use of public parks were valid and enforceable. “Expressive matter is defined as ‘materials or objects with expressive content, such as newspapers, books or writings, or visual art such as paintings, prints, photography, sculpture, or entertainment’ …”.

… DPR [NYC Department of Parks and Recreation] published proposed revisions to the rules applicable to EMVs. It held a public hearing, and based on comments at the hearing as well as written comments, revised the proposed rules. … Under the revised EMV Rules, while EMVs may sell in almost all City parks if they comply with certain requirements, they are restricted in Union Square Park, Battery Park, High Line Park, and portions of Central Park below 86th Street, where they may only sell their items, on a first-come, first-serve basis, in certain designated areas, and only one vendor is allowed to sell at each spot. The EMVs may always sell in the nonenumerated areas, including other City parks and sidewalks.  * * *

I. The EMV Rules do not conflict with the City Council’s legislative intent, as expressed in Local Law No. 33 of 1982. * * *

II. The EMV Rules do not violate vendors’ rights under the New York Constitution. * * *

III. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Law. * * *

IV. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs leave to amend to add a separation of powers claim. * * * Dua v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 2019 NY Slip Op 06154, First Dept 8-20-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FROM BRONX TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant doctor’s (Goldstein’s) motion to change the venue of this medical malpractice action from Bronx to Westchester County should not have been granted. The majority held the burden was on Goldstein to demonstrate the need for a change of venue and that burden was not met:

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action in Bronx County, alleging that defendants were negligent in rendering podiatric care and treatment to her between April and September 2016. Defendants moved and cross-moved to transfer venue to Westchester County. WestMed and Rye submitted an affidavit of their medical director averring that Dr. Goldstein was one of their employees in Westchester. Dr. Goldstein submitted an affidavit averring that he had offices in Bronx County and Westchester County. He indicated that Westchester County was where his principal place of business was located because that was where he spent the majority of his time. However, he also averred that he maintained privileges at St. Barnabas Hospital and supervised podiatric residents at two St. Barnabas Hospital clinics where approximately 150 patients per month were seen. He averred that in addition he saw approximately 20-25 patients per week at a Bronx Park Medical pavilion located at 2016 Bronxdale Avenue in the Bronx.

Plaintiff is suing not only Westmed Medical Group, P.C. and Rye Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, but Dr. Goldstein individually. Since Dr. Goldstein is a party to the lawsuit, venue is proper in the county where he may be said to reside. CPLR 503(a) provides that the place of trial “shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced,” and, insofar as relevant here, “[a] party resident in more than one county shall be deemed a resident of each such county” … . Dr. Goldstein may also be viewed as an individually-owned business, and thus a resident of any county in which he has a principal office (CPLR 503[d]). Thus, an individually-owned business, much as a partnership, may be deemed a resident of the county where it has its principal office, as well as any county in which the individual owner being sued resides … . Siegel notes that the “principal office” county is an alternative; venue may still be based on the residence of natural-born parties … .

Applying these principles, Dr. Goldstein’s affidavit, attesting to residency in Westchester County but devoid of supporting documentation of residency, was insufficient to prove that plaintiff’s designation of Bronx County as venue was improper … . Lividini v Goldstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06150, Fourth Dept 8-20-19

 

PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE SCAFFOLD OR A FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff was injured attempting to enter a building through a window from a scaffold, a prohibited method of entry. There was evidence plaintiff dislocated his shoulder trying to pull himself up to the window, and there was (possibly conflicting) evidence plaintiff fell backwards onto the scaffold. The majority concluded that in either scenario the injury was not caused by a defect in the scaffold or a failure to provide an adequate safety device, and therefore was not compensable:

Plaintiff’s claim was correctly dismissed because defendants demonstrated as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injury was not proximately caused by a violation of section 240(1). Plaintiff’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff conceded that scaffold stairs were available to him to descend several floors and reenter the building. Further, as already noted, he admitted during his deposition that he knew he was not supposed to climb through the [*5]window and that it would have been safer to use the scaffold stairs. On appeal, he essentially argues, inter alia, that reentry via the scaffold stairs would have taken more time and would have been an inconvenience. Plaintiff also admitted to unhooking his safety line in order to climb through the window cut-out. Under the circumstances, adequate safety devices were available for plaintiff’s use at the job site, and his own actions in unhooking his safety line and climbing through the window were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … .

Because plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, the claims for common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 were also properly dismissed … .

Plaintiff also failed to raise an issue of fact as to a violation of the Industrial Code, as required to support the claim under Labor Law § 241(6) … . Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(d), which requires that an employer “not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition,” clearly does not include a crossbar, such as the one from which plaintiff allegedly slipped, because it is limited to “working surfaces.” While a scaffold platform on which workers stand and work would seemingly come within the provision, structural crossbars which simply hold the scaffold together are not working surfaces required for standing or walking … . Biaca-Neto v Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06142, First Dept 8-13-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged a discarded metrocard was the cause of her slip and fall on a train station stairwell. The defendant did not demonstrate when the stairwell was last inspected or cleaned:

Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff … alleges that he was injured when, while descending stairs in a subway station, he slipped and fell on a discarded Metrocard. Although the cleaner on duty in the station testified he was given a Cleaners Manual and a written cleaning schedule, evidencing that defendant had a “rational means for dealing with the problem” of strewn MetroCards on the stairwell of train stations, the cleaner conceded that he could not recall whether he had deviated from his usual work schedule on the date of plaintiff’s accident and he did not have an independent recollection of when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … .

Because defendant did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to establish how long the condition existed … . Carela v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 06140, First Dept 8-13-19

 

, , ,

THERE WERE NO GROUNDS TO DISTURB THE FACTUAL FINDINGS MADE BY THE JUDGE IN THIS BENCH TRIAL OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION, TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE FINDINGS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the evidence at the bench trial in this foreclosure proceeding supported the judge’s conclusion that plaintiff bank was not the cause of defendant’s inability to obtain financing to payoff the mortgage pursuant to a settlement agreement. The dissenters argued the trial judge’s findings were against the weight of the evidence, primarily because the judge found defendant’s testimony to be “honest and accurate.” The key issue in the appeal was whether there were sufficient grounds to disturb the  judge’s factual findings:

… [W]e perceive no basis on which to disturb the trial court’s determination. As articulated by the Court of Appeals, the standard of review on an appeal from a decision based on findings of fact, resting in large measure on determinations of the credibility of witnesses, made by the court after a bench trial, is as follows:

“[T]he decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992] …).

Supreme Court’s rejection of defendant’s claim — a claim based on testimony not only lacking support in the contemporaneous documentary evidence, but inconsistent with that evidence — more than passes muster under this highly deferential standard. Security Pac. Natl. Bank v Evans, 2019 NY Slip Op 06138, First Dept 8-13-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT A HEARING AND THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANTS WERE SEEKING TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S DIALYSIS TREATMENT BASED UPON SHARPLY CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S BEHAVIOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the the temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing defendant dialysis provider from stopping plaintiff’s treatment should not have been vacated and plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction should have been denied without a hearing. The dialysis provider, Avantus, wanted to discontinue treatment because of plaintiff’s behavior. However the evidence of plaintiff’s behavior was sharply conflicting:

… [T]he motion court had found that Avantus had not produced evidence showing that it had complied with any of the federal procedural requirements for terminating a patient’s care. Defendants had not presented any new evidence that it had done so before the court issued the order presently on appeal. Indeed, the court did not address the merits of defendants’ decision to terminate plaintiff’s care at all. Accordingly, the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing.

The motion court also improperly vacated the TRO without a hearing. Plaintiff’s showing that he would be irreparably injured in the absence of a TRO never changed. The court was presented with no evidence inconsistent with its finding in issuing the TRO that “there is no dispute that dialysis is a life-saving measure which plaintiff sorely needs, and at this stage of the litigation, the defendants have not established that the reasons for plaintiff’s discharge from the facility outweigh the risks that discharge would carry with regard to plaintiff’s health.”

In addition, although the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to comply with the conditions set forth in the TRO, the parties presented sharply divergent facts on that issue, which could not be resolved without a hearing. Wilder v Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06054, First Dept 8-7-19

 

ACTION BROUGHT BY EUROPEAN PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP OF A PAINTING ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS AND SOLD IN NEW YORK BY CHRISTIE’S PROPERLY DISMISSED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined a lawsuit to determine ownership of a Degas painting illegally confiscated by Nazis and years later sold at a Christie’s auction in New York was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens.  The plaintiffs’ rights arose in Germany and France and Swiss and French estate law apply:

The motion court properly dismissed this action on forum non conveniens grounds without first determining whether it had personal jurisdiction over all the defendants. Sinochem Intl. Co. Ltd. v Malaysia Intl. Shipping Corp.(549 US 422 [2007]) is persuasive authority on this point. In that case, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that a trial court “has discretion to respond at once to a defendant’s forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject matter jurisidiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is plainly the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case” (id. at 425). To be sure, as the Sinochem Court noted, if a court can readily determine that it lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the proper course is to dismiss on that ground. However, where personal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens considerations clearly militate in favor of dismissal, a court may dismiss on the latter ground (id. at 436). …

Plaintiffs’ rights as heirs to the painting arose in Germany and France, although the painting was allegedly wrongfully sold in New York. The burden on the New York court in applying Swiss and French estate law to determine the underlying issue of the lawful heirs to [the owner’s] estate is significant. As the motion court noted, the parties “not only dispute the applicable foreign law, but discuss the substance of the law . . . in a manner that is, at best, opaque.” “The applicability of foreign law is an important consideration in determining a forum non conveniens motion . . . and weighs in favor of dismissal” … . …

The potential hardships to the defendants of litigating in New York are clear. * * *

Switzerland appears to be an available alternative forum. France and Germany also may be possible alternatives.  Kainer v UBS AG, 2019 NY Slip Op 06053, First Dept 8-7-19

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy