You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

HOME DEPOT RENTED A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO DROVE THE TRUCK INTO A CROWD OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT; THE MOTION COURT IMPROPERLY TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED TRUE FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS, HERE THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE PROPERLY REFUTED BY AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS SUBMITTED BY HOME DEPOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against defendant Home Depot, which rented a truck to Saipov, referred to in the decision as a “terrorist,”  who drove the truck into a crowd of pedestrians and bicyclists. The First Department noted that the motion court improperly treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. The First Department further noted that, although allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true for analysis of a motion to dismiss, affidavits and other documents submitted by a defendant can properly refute the allegations made in the complaint, and did so here:

… “[F]actual allegations presumed to be true on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 may properly be negated by affidavits and documentary evidence” … .

Plaintiffs’ complaints allege that Home Depot negligently entrusted the vehicle to Saipov when it knew or should have known that his use of the pickup truck could be potentially dangerous to others, and that it should have refused to rent it to him. These allegations, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, do not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment. Moreover, documentary evidence as well as deposition testimony submitted by Home Depot conclusively refute these allegations.

… Home Depot established that it did not have “some special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar” to Saipov which would render his use of the truck “unreasonably dangerous” … . Grandelli v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-15-25

Practice Point: On a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true. However, those allegation can be negated by affidavits, depositions and other documents submitted by a defendant. The submission of such documents does not convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.

 

, ,

CIVIL COURT WHICH AWARDED RENT ARREARS IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM FOR RENT DUE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LEASE (POST-EVICTION); THEREFORE THE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT FOR THE POST-EVICTION RENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of res judicata did not apply to this action for rent due as liquidated damages. Although the eviction proceeding in Civil Court awarded defendant the rent arrears, Civil Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for the rent due for the remainder of the lease term (post-eviction). Therefore the rent-as-liquidated-damages claim could be brought in Supreme Court:

This action, in which plaintiff seeks the recovery of rent arrears, is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as plaintiff could not have sought relief for its current claims in the Civil Court eviction proceeding. Although the rent arrears claim arises out of the same transaction as the claim for future rent … , res judicata is inapplicable where the plaintiff could not seek a particular remedy in the first action because of a limitation on a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiff wishes to seek that remedy in the second action … .

The liquidated damages clause in the lease expressly provided that plaintiff was under no duty to mitigate damages by re-letting the premises and further provided that, even if Levant was evicted, it was to remain liable for its monetary obligations under the lease … . However, Civil Court, which determined the eviction proceeding, is “without authority to address a claim for the balance of rent due” as liquidated damages … . Thus, once plaintiff had been awarded judgment in the summary proceeding, the parties’ relationship as landlord and tenant ended and whatever monetary liability Levant may have had to plaintiff at that point “was no longer in the nature of rent, but was in the nature of contract damages” … . Prospect Resources Inc. v Levant Capital N. Am., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02169, First Dept 4-15-25

Practice Point: Here the court which handled the eviction proceedings did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for post-eviction rent as liquidated damages. Therefore the doctrine of res judicata did not preclude the suit for the post-eviction rent in Supreme Court.

 

,

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY FOURTH AND FIFTH DEGREE ARE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THIRD DEGREE; UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE, HOWEVER, IS NOT BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE POSSESSION OF A VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the criminal possession of stolen property fourth and fifth degree convictions should have been vacated as lesser included offenses of criminal possession of stolen property third degree. The court noted that unauthorized use of a vehicle is not a lesser included offense of criminal possession of stolen property because the criminal-possession statute does not require possession of a motor vehicle:

“When it is impossible to commit a particular crime without concomitantly committing, by the same conduct, another offense of lesser grade or degree, the latter is, with respect to the former, a ‘lesser included offense'” (CPL 1.20[37]). However, appellant’s argument that unauthorized use of a vehicle is a lesser included offense of criminal possession of stolen property is incorrect. It is possible to criminally possess stolen property without also committing, by the same conduct, the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle, because the criminal possession statute does not require possession of a motor vehicle as the other statute does … . Matter of D.P. 2025 NY Slip Op 02132 First Dept 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into what is, and what is not, a lesser included offense.​

 

, ,

THE JUDGE PRONOUNCED A FELONY SENTENCE WITHOUT AN UPDATED AND COMPLETE PRESENTENCE REPORT; SENTENCE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s sentence after his period of incarceration was served but before his postrelease supervision was complete, determined the absence of a complete and updated presentence report invalidated the sentence:

Where a person is convicted of a felony, the court must order a presentence investigation of the defendant and it may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of that investigation (CPL 390.20[1] …). The presentence report must be current and contain updated information pertinent to the imposition of a proper sentence … . We hold that the presentence report in this case was inadequate, as it omitted crucial information regarding defendant’s history of trauma, mental health and substance abuse issues and failed to include a victim impact statement, among other things (CPL 390.30). We particularly note that defendant had not been interviewed prior to the report’s issuance and that Probation requested an adjournment of sentencing so that the newly assigned case officer could conduct the investigation.

Defendant, who was not represented by his assigned counsel at sentencing, did not waive his entitlement to a current, updated report by failing to affirmatively object to the presentence report’s sufficiency … . People v Camacho, 2025 NY Slip Op 02136, First Dept 4-10-25

Practice Point: A judge cannot pronounce sentence for a felony before receiving an updated and complete presentence report.

 

,

THE ALLEGATION A SCAFFOLD COLLAPSED AND FELL ON PLAINTIFF SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SCAFFOLD WAS DEFECTIVE; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEE THE SCAFFOLD FALL WAS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegation that a scaffold collapsed and fell on plaintiff warranted summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The plaintiff was not required to show the scaffold was defective and the fact that plaintiff did not see the scaffold fall was not relevant:

Plaintiff was struck by a wooden plank dropped by coworkers while constructing the second level of a 16-foot tall, wheeled scaffold and then was struck by the scaffold when it fell over and landed on top of him. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. The collapse of a scaffold is one of those special hazards contemplated by the statute, and an accident caused by a scaffold collapse is prima facie evidence of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation …  Cabgram’s argument that summary judgment is not warranted because the scaffold was not defective is unpersuasive because plaintiff need not demonstrate that the scaffold was defective to establish his prima facie case … . Nor is it relevant that plaintiff did not see the scaffold tip over, inasmuch as his back was turned when the accident occurred … . Alonso v Cabgram Dev., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02029, First Dept 4-8-25

Practice Point: Injury from a collapsing scaffold warrants summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action without proof the scaffold was defective.

 

,

THE PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY HAD TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF HER CLAIM AND HER ALLEGATION THAT HER INJURIES PREVENTED HER FROM MAKING A TIMELY CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the city should not have been granted. Petitioner did not demonstrate the city had timey actual notice of the nature of the claim and did not submit medical records to support her excuse that her injuries prevented her from filing a timely notice of claim:

Petitioner failed to show that respondents had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the legal theories on which liability was predicated in the notice of claim … . Contrary to her contention, neither the police report, the NYPD complaint, nor the Department of Education occurrence report provided respondents with the facts underlying her theory of liability, as none of these documents linked the accident to any potentially actionable wrongdoing committed by them.

Although petitioner demonstrated that respondents would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving the notice of claim, as the alleged defect has not changed since the incident … , her assertion that the severity of her injuries precluded her from serving notice, without any supporting medical documentation or evidence, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for her delay … .

Petitioner’s submission to the motion court failed to include any medical records detailing her surgery and follow-up visits, and her petition stated that she was able to leave the apartment for her medical treatments and ultimately work remotely. Furthermore, it is not clear from the petition when she retained counsel, and a lack of due diligence in determining the identity of the parties involved is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . Matter of Kayam v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02037, First Dept 4-8-25

Practice Point: An allegation that injuries prevented the filing of a timely notice of claim should be backed up by medical records.

 

,

THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW PROHIBITS THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; THEREFORE THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE ADDRESSES OF HOMELESS SHELTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the FOIL request for the addresses of homeless shelters should not have been granted. Social Services Law section 136(1) provides that “[t]he names or addresses of persons applying for or receiving public assistance and care shall not be included in any published report or printed in any newspaper” … :

A shelter constitutes the “address” of its occupants. “Address” means “[t]he place where mail or other communication is sent” … or “a place where a person . . . may be communicated with” … . Shelter residents “have the right to receive and send mail” at their shelters, as well as “the right to receive visitors” there (18 NYCRR 491.12[c][6], [17]). There is nothing in the definition of “address” that would exclude temporary housing. Matter of NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 2025 NY Slip Op 02013, First Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: The Social Services Law prohibits the release of the names and addresses of persons receiving public assistance. Therefore the FOIL request for the addresses of homeless shelters should have been denied.

 

, , , , ,

FAMILY COURT LOST SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AFTER THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED THE CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed. Therefore the child’s placement in foster should not have been continued by the court. The First Department also noted that mother’s mental-health records from the period after the filing and after the dismissal of the neglect petition were improperly admitted:

We … find that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue R.C.’s foster care placement for the reasons articulated in Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.) (30 NY3d 275 [2017]), in which the Court of Appeals held that “Family Court’s jurisdiction terminates upon dismissal of the original neglect or abuse petition” … .

The “court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, but may be raised at any stage of the action, and the court may . . . on its own motion . . . at any time, when its attention is called to the facts, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action” … .

Here, once the neglect petition against the mother was dismissed, Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue the child’s temporary removal from the mother’s care and placement in foster care … . Accordingly, it should have immediately returned the child to the mother’s care and terminated the child’s foster care placement. It erred when it determined that it could hold permanency hearings based on the pending neglect petition against the putative father, since the child was not removed from his care, but from the mother’s. … Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that the child ever resided with the putative father and no indication that he ever sought custody of the child.

Furthermore, we find that the failure of Family Court to immediately return the child to the care of the mother after the dismissal of the neglect petition against her—as well as the subsequent protracted proceedings, including the dispositional hearing, which lasted nearly a year and a half—violated her due process rights … . Matter of R.C. (D.C.–R.R.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01859, First Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed and did not have the authority to continue the child’s placement in foster care.

Practice Point: The protracted proceedings after the dismissal of the neglect petition, during which the child remained in foster care, violated mother’s right to due process.

 

FOIL REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS POSSESSED BY ANOTHER AGENCY AND FOIL REQUESTS WHICH REQUIRED THE CREATION OF A NEW DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined FOIL requests for documents in the possession of another agency and FOIL requests which require the creation of a new document should not have been granted:

The court improperly ordered DCAS [Department of Citywide Administrative Services] to produce information possessed by another agency, the Financial Information Systems Agency (FISA). FOIL does not require an agency “to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by” that agency (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). DCAS’s witness gave unrebutted testimony that several of the eight categories of requested information are maintained in a separate database by FISA, not DCAS. Accordingly, DCAS is “under no obligation to provide” that information … .

The court also improperly required DCAS to undergo a process that would constitute the creation of a new record … . DCAS’s witness provided testimony that compliance with the request would require a multi-step process involving writing requirements for searches and for extracting data from three databases, reviewing the data for accuracy and completeness, developing code to “convert” the raw “transactional” data into “time series” or “status” data, and then aggregating and otherwise cleaning up the information into a report. Her testimony was consistent with her affidavit describing the process and estimating that, while the discrete step of extracting the raw data from DCAS’s database would take only four hours, “the staff time required for the production of the requested reports” as a whole “is not less than 150 to 158 hours.”

This Court has held that a similar “transformation process” necessary to compile an analogous list of City employee information “would entail much more than a ‘simple manipulation of the computer . . . to transfer existing records'” and would therefore constitute the creation of a new record … . “[T]here is no fair interpretation of the [testimony] that can support” the court’s findings that the total process would take only four hours or that this case is distinguishable from our previous holding … . Matter of FDNY Local 2507, DC-37, AFSCME v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01867, First Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: A FOIL request for a document which is in the possession of another agency need not be granted.

Practice Point: A FOIL request which requires an agency to create a new document is improper.

 

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