You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED A PEN TO PUNCTURE THE CHEEK OF THE VICTIM CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT USED A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND CASE, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ORDINARY-NONDEADLY-FORCE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the ordinary-nondeadly-force justification defense in this Assault Second prosecution was properly denied. The defendant did not request a jury instruction on the deadly-force-justification defense. Defendant’s use of a pen to puncture the victim’s cheek constituted use of a dangerous instrument:

The video surveillance captures the defendant reaching into his bag or pocket with his right hand and then immediately striking the complainant with that same hand. Photographs of the complainant’s cheek reflect what appears to be a puncture of the cheek. The photograph of the outside of the complainant’s cheek shows that there was a thin, horizontal cut adjacent to the round through-and-through puncture on the complainant’s cheek, consistent with a sharp object, such as the point of a pen, scratching the complainant’s cheek before the object plunged into it.

The record further reveals that police officers who arrived at the scene observed the complainant bleeding from a puncture wound on the side of his face. At the time of defendant’s arrest, the police recovered a pen that defendant was holding in his right hand. …

Under the facts presented, the only possible justification charge that would have been available to defendant would have been a charge of justifiable use of deadly, not ordinary, physical force (see Penal Law § 35.15[2]; People v Mickens, 219 AD2d 543, 544 [1st Dept 1995] …). People v Marishaw, 2019 NY Slip Op 05320, First Dept 7-2-19

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT HEARSAY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING ONE OF THE ROBBERY VICTIMS, WHO DID NOT TESTIFY, FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A LINEUP, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant should have been allowed to present evidence that one of the robbery victims, who did not testify, failed to identify the defendant at a lineup, even though there was evidence the victim falsely claimed he/she could not identify anyone:

The court erred in denying defendant’s application, expressly made under Chambers v Mississippi (410 US 284 [1973]), to receive testimony that one of the robbery victims, who was unavailable to testify at trial, failed to identify defendant at a lineup. Of the requirements for admission of exculpatory hearsay evidence, the only one in dispute is the reliability of the nonidentification. Although there were reasons to suspect that this victim may have falsely claimed to be unable to identify anyone in the lineup, the nonidentification plainly bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” under the applicable standard, which “hinges upon reliability rather than credibility”… . Where the proponent of the statement ” is able to establish this possibility of trustworthiness, it is the function of the jury alone to determine whether the declaration is sufficient to create reasonable doubt of guilt'” … . People v Cook, 2019 NY Slip Op 05210, First Dept 6-27-19

 

,

SEARCH OF A SUITCASE WAS A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN HANDCUFFED AND WAS IN THE PRESENCE OF AS MANY AS EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, over an extensive, two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that the search of a suitcase was a valid search incident to arrest, even though defendant, who had let go of the suitcase, had been handcuffed. Defendant had been observed by the arresting officer (Ayala) coming out of several stores and placing apparently stolen items into the suitcase. At the time the suitcase was searched, defendant was handcuffed and had been approached on the street by approximately eight police officers:

Officer Ayala’s testimony that a knife was recovered from both defendant and Chauncey also established that there were exigent circumstances justifying the search of the suitcase … . …

… [A]n officer need not affirmatively testify to the exigency … . Rather, the exigent circumstances need only be inferred from the circumstances of the arrest … . …

Ayala’s search of the suitcase was also justified to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence, as Ayala believed defendant and codefendant Chauncey had stolen clothing from approximately three stores and placed the clothing in the suitcase … . The dissent continues to ignore the facts that the suitcase was large enough to conceal a weapon and that the officer had just seen defendant stealing merchandise and placing it in the suitcase. Officer Ayala did not know whether there were weapons contained in the bag. …

The testimony of Officer Ayala established that the suitcase was not in the exclusive control of the police at the time of the search. It remained at defendant’s feet where he dropped it. Additionally, it has been consistently held that “[w]hether in fact defendant could have had access to the briefcase at the moment it was being searched is irrelevant” … .

That defendant was handcuffed in no way negates a finding of exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search … . Although defendant was handcuffed during the search of the suitcase, there was a “realistic possibility” that he could have used means other than his hands “such as kicking or shoving the arresting officer – to disrupt the arrest process in order to gain a weapon or destroy evidence” … . People v Harris, 2019 NY Slip Op 05099, First Dept 6-25-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT NEVER SIGNED IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s breach-of-an-employment-contract action should not have been dismissed. The defendant never signed the contract. However, plaintiff performed and was paid according to the contract. When plaintiff was terminated, defendant refused to pay the six month’s severance which was provided for in the contract:

The fact that defendant never signed the agreement is not, at this pleading stage, an impediment to a finding that the parties intended to be bound … . There is nothing in the agreement stating that it will not be binding until executed by both sides … . The counterparts clause provides that each party may indicate its assent by signing a separate counterpart; it does not state that the parties can assent only by signing. The merger and written amendments clauses provide only that the agreement, and any subsequent amendments, must be in writing; they do not state that the parties may convey their assent only by affixing signatures.

The complaint also sufficiently alleges causes of action for promissory estoppel … and recovery of severance as unpaid wages under Labor Law article 6 … . However, plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a claim for unjust enrichment as he does not allege he was not paid for the work he actually performed … . Lord v Marilyn Model Mgt., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05093, First Dept 6-25-19

 

, , ,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER HAS A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS NOT DIMINISHED BY HIRING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR TO WORK ON THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant abutting property owner’s (Hillman’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly denied. Hillman had hired an independent contractor to do concrete work on the sidewalk, but that did not relieve Hillman of his nondelegable duty to keep the sidewalk in good repair (NYC Administrative Code):

Although the “general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor . . . is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts,” an exception arises when the hiring party “is under a specific nondelegable duty” … . Here, Hillman, as the property owner, had a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk, including the sidewalk around the subject sign post stump …

Contrary to Hillman’s contention, the motion court did not conclude that Hillman is, in fact, liable for any alleged wrongs committed by the independent contractor in performing cement sidewalk resurfacing work. Rather, the motion court correctly found that under these circumstances the record raises issues of fact as to whether the cement work ordered by this defendant, the property owner, caused or exacerbated a hazardous tripping condition, and whether Hillman had actual or constructive knowledge of the metal protrusion on the sidewalk outside its building. Factual issues are also presented as to whether the condition was open and obvious, or, alternatively the defect trivial … . Vullo v Hillman Hous. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05087, First Dept 6-25-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL DURING A STORM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS ICY BEFORE THE STORM, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Although a storm was in progress when plaintiff fell, there was evidence there was ice in that area before the storm:

Although the meteorological records and the expert meteorological affidavits demonstrate that there was a storm in progress when the accident happened, a warehouse associate employed by [defendant] testified at his deposition that he saw ice on the ground the loading dock about a week before plaintiff’s fall and defendants submitted no evidence as to when the area was last inspected or cleaned before the accident. In these circumstances, there are triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s fall was caused by pre-existing ice on the ground or the storm in progress and whether [defendants] had a reasonable time to remedy any alleged icy condition before the date of plaintiff’s fall … . Perez v Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05083, First Dept 6-25-19

 

,

FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT UPHELD, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this Family Law family offense proceeding, determined the evidence supported harassment second, but did not support one count of sexual misconduct, assault in the second degree, or criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation. Petitioner admitted that she expected payment for sex and did not demonstrate a lack of consent with respect to one of the sexual misconduct counts. Biting petitioner’s ear during sex did not constitute assault second (teeth being the dangerous instrument). And restricting petitioner’s breathing during sex was not a crime because respondent stopped immediately when petitioner expressed discomfort. With respect to harassment, the court wrote:

The record shows, inter alia, that respondent threatened petitioner that he would take the steps necessary to cause her to lose her immigration status and rights to the child if she stopped prostituting herself to him, thereby evincing respondent’s intent to harass and alarm petitioner (Penal Law § 240.26[3]) and his inducing petitioner to engage in a sexual relationship with him by instilling fear in her … . Matter of Irena K. v Francesco S., 2019 NY Slip Op 05066, First Dept 6-25-19

 

,

JUDGE WHO DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT COULD DECIDE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined it was appropriate for a judge to decide a summary judgment motion, despite the fact that another judge heard the oral argument:

The fact that oral argument was held before a different Justice than the Justice who ultimately decided the motion for summary judgment is not a proper basis for vacating the order granting summary judgment. Although Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a Supreme Court Justice “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge,” reversal is not warranted on this ground, because the Justice who granted the motion decided a purely legal question … . Marti v Rana, 2019 NY Slip Op 05011, First Dept 6-20-19

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA) ACTION BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PASSENGER PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant railroad’s motion for summary judgment in this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) by a railroad employee assaulted by a passenger was properly denied. The court explained the evidentiary criteria under the FELA:

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) (45 USC § 51 et seq.) provides that operators of interstate railroads shall be liable to their employees for on-the-job injuries resulting from the railroad’s negligence. In an action under FELA, “the plaintiff must prove the traditional common-law elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, causation and foreseeability” … . However, these elements are “substantially relaxed” and “negligence is liberally construed to effectuate the statute’s broadly remedial intended function” … . A claim under FELA “must be determined by the jury if there is any question as to whether employer negligence played a part, however small, in producing plaintiff’s injury” … . “A case is deemed unworthy of submission to a jury only if evidence of negligence is so thin that on a judicial appraisal, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that negligence by the employer could have played no part in an employee’s injury” … .

To establish the element of foreseeability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition (id.). However, notice generally presents an issue of fact for the jury … . “As with all issues under FELA, the right of the jury to pass on this issue must be liberally construed, with the jury’s power to draw inferences greater than in a common-law action” … .

Under the foregoing relaxed standard, there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning defendant’s actual or constructive notice of a risk of assault to conductors on the New Haven Line. Plaintiff testified that she was previously assaulted by a passenger, and that there was an ongoing problem of physical intimidation by large groups of adolescents refusing to pay their fares, which caused her to fear for her safety. Plaintiff also testified that she has called the MTA’s rail traffic controllers for police assistance at least 250 times to deal with abusive passengers; another conductor was punched in the face and knocked out on the New Haven Line; a passenger attempted to stab and rob another conductor on the Harlem Line. Stephney v MTA Metro-N. R.R., 2019 NY Slip Op 05004, First Dept 6-20-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, stemming from falling from a roof he was working on, should have been granted with respect to the property owner (Bruckner) and the general contractor (Metro). There was a question of fact whether Western, which leased the property, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner for Labor Law purposes. However, the property manager, Ashkenazy, had no authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work and was not liable under Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) or 200:

An issue of fact exists as to whether Western, the lessee, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner, for Labor Law purposes. Record evidence showing that Western was responsible for renovating the premises, including the roof, and had retained Metro as the general contractor for the renovation work, raises an issue of fact as to whether Western had the authority to supervise and control the work site … . The testimony of Western’s director of merchandising that he was not involved with the construction work is insufficient to excuse Western from liability, where he had no knowledge of, and could not testify to, the lease arrangements between Western and Bruckner, as well as the arrangement between Western and Metro … .

Ashkenazy had no involvement with the construction work, and was onsite only to check on its progress, and to ensure it did not interfere with the other tenants. The belief of its “Director of Property Management” that he may have been able to stop work at the job site “[w]ith proper notice I guess as per the lease” is too equivocal to raise an issue of fact. Because there was no evidence that Ashkenazy had authority to supervise or control the work site, the Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be dismissed against it … . Ashkenazy is also entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim because, for the same reasons, it is not an “owner” or “agent” under that statute … . Without authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work, Ashkenazy also may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence principles in this case involving the means and method of plaintiff’s work … . Reyes v Bruckner Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05003, First Dept 6-20-19

 

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