You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE-FORCE CASE SET ASIDE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A $200,000 DAMAGES AWARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the verdict awarding plaintiff zero damages for past pain and suffering should have been set aside in this police-excessive-force case (42 USC 1983). The court ordered a new trial unless the parties stipulated to a $200,000 damages award:

Plaintiff sustained injuries when a New York City police officer smashed him in the nose with a bullet-proof shield after entering his apartment to execute a search warrant. After a trial, the jury found that the officer violated plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by using excessive force while arresting him and that the excessive force was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. However, the jury awarded plaintiff no damages for pain and suffering. * * *

However, we find that the jury’s failure to award damages for past pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501[c]; …). The undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff was in pain the first night after being struck, that for about two weeks after the incident his broken nose and orbital bone fractures were “kind of rough,” that he could only breathe through his mouth, that he had to get medication, that he suffered “really bad” headaches, and that he required reconstructive nasal surgery as a result of his injuries. Shimukonas v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07147, First Dept 10-3-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMMON LAW INDEMNITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim in this ladder-fall case, and the property owner, Church of God, was entitled to common law indemnity because plaintiff’s work was supervised by his apparent employer, Belfor:

Plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder wobbled, flipped, and flopped, causing him to fall, sets forth a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Defendants failed to adduce any evidence rebutting plaintiff’s showing, making summary judgment appropriate.

Plaintiff testified that he was using a Belfor ladder at the time of his fall. Belfor’s deponent, who had no knowledge of the accident, conceded that Belfor had ladders on site, and could not say whether plaintiff’s employer, the subcontractor who furnished labor for the cleaning and debris removal portion of the project, also brought ladders. There were no other subcontractors on site. Belfor’s deponent also testified that Belfor had a site supervisor, the only Belfor employee on site that day, and that he would have been “in the thick of it,” and not performing paperwork or similar administrative tasks. Plaintiff, who wore a Belfor uniform at Belfor’s behest, testified that Belfor employees were “the bosses,” ordering him around. This evidence, taken together, is sufficient to establish that Church of God made a prima facie showing of entitlement to common law indemnity … . Rivera-Astudillo v Garden of Prayer Church of God in Christ, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07033, First Dept 10-1-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S DRUG SALE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversed defendant’s drug-sale conviction as against the weight of the evidence. The police saw a woman approach defendant and the woman had a $10 bag of crack cocaine in her mouth when the police stopped her. The defendant had $10 in his pocket but no drugs on him. No exchange between the two was observed:

Two police officers testified that they observed defendant in a high drug trafficking area. They both saw defendant approach a man and talk to him. The man gave defendant money and there was an “exchange,” but the officers did not see what was exchanged. Shortly thereafter, one of the officers witnessed a woman approach defendant. The officer saw the woman speak to defendant and then touch his hand, but the officer did not see any money or drugs exchanged. Defendant and the woman separated, and the officer approached the woman. The officer identified herself, said that she just saw what happened, and heard the woman chewing on something. She asked the woman to spit out the object, which turned out to be a small bag containing $10 worth of crack cocaine. The officer never saw the woman put the bag in her mouth or even bring her hand to her mouth. The police then arrested the woman and defendant. Defendant did not have any drugs on him, but had $10 in his sweatshirt pocket and other denominations of cash in his pants pocket.

In the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the People did not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that defendant sold cocaine to the woman, which was the only crime charged. The officer who witnessed the transaction acknowledged she did not observe an exchange of anything, including money, drugs or unidentified objects, between defendant and the woman. In addition, the People’s theory that the woman put the bag in her mouth after purchasing it from defendant was contradicted by the officer’s testimony that she never saw the woman put anything into her mouth, or even put her hand to her mouth. Furthermore, the People’s theory that defendant sold two $10 bags, one to the man and the other to the woman, was inconsistent with the cash found on defendant. People v Correa, 2019 NY Slip Op 07017, First Dept 10-1-19

 

,

AN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER, AS OPPOSED TO THE CORPORATION, CAN NOT BE HELD STRICTLY LIABLE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW UNLESS THE OFFICER ENCOURAGED, CONDONED OR APPROVED THE SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT; COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CORPORATE OFFICER DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an individual corporate officer cannot be held strictly liable under the New York City Human Rights Law (HRL) for sexual discrimination unless the officer encouraged, condoned or approved the conduct. Here the plaintiff did not demonstrate the officer, Michael Bloomberg, was aware of the conduct by plaintiff’s supervisor (Ferris). The complaint against the officer was dismissed:

With respect to Mr. Bloomberg, the allegations in the complaint are as follows. Following Mr. Bloomberg’s example and leadership, Bloomberg L.P. bred a hostile work environment that led to the type of discrimination plaintiff experienced. Mr. Bloomberg was sued in a class action brought by female employees who alleged sexual harassment and creation of a hostile work environment while he was CEO of Bloomberg L.P. Mr. Bloomberg was also accused of condoning systemic top-down discrimination against female employees in a sexual harassment suit brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of 58 female employees, not including the plaintiff. The complaint also cites various magazine articles and statements by public figures describing unsavory conduct and comments made by Mr. Bloomberg, directed at or regarding women other than plaintiff. * * *

… [W]we find that plaintiff’s City HRL claims must be dismissed as against Mr. Bloomberg because plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that Mr. Bloomberg is her employer for purposes of the City HRL. She has failed to allege that Mr. Bloomberg encouraged, condoned or approved the specific discriminatory conduct allegedly committed by Mr. Ferris. Doe v Bloomberg, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 06728, First Dept 9-24-19

 

,

OHIO TRUSTEE’S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT PURSUANT TO A ROYALTY AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION UPON NEW YORK, DESPITE A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Ohio trustee’s request for payment under a 1986 royalty agreement with the New York plaintiff  did not confer jurisdiction upon New York, even though the contract included a New York choice of law provision:

The trustee’s requests from Ohio, by letter, telephone, and/or email, to plaintiff in New York to send him monies due under the royalty agreement that plaintiff had entered into in 1986 with nonparty Denise Somerville …— which would merely continue plaintiff’s previous practice of sending royalties to Somerville in Ohio — do not constitute the transaction of business under CPLR 302(a)(1) … .

… [N]egotiating a contract from outside New York “is insufficient to constitute the transaction of business in New York” … . …

The fact that the contract chooses New York law does not “constitute a voluntary submission to personal jurisdiction in New York” … . ABKCO Music, Inc. v McMahon, 2019 NY Slip Op 06721, First Dept 9-24-19

 

,

DEFENDANT REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY IN NEVADA AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED IN NEW YORK, HIS STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant had requested an attorney in Nevada and, upon being returned to New York, was questioned without waiving his right to counsel in the presence of counsel. Therefore the statements should have been suppressed:

Defendant’s motion to suppress his incriminating written and videotaped statements should have been granted. Several days before defendant made the contested statements, he was taken into custody by the Las Vegas Police Department. While in custody, defendant requested to speak with the detective from the Regional Fugitive Task Force who had located defendant in Las Vegas and was about to bring him back to New York. The detective met defendant in a conference room and asked him if he wanted to talk. Defendant responded, “I would like to tell you what happened, but I think I want to talk to an attorney.” The detective, who responded by saying “okay,” and did not ask defendant any questions about the homicide, testified that he understood that defendant “wanted an attorney.”

Upon returning to New York, defendant met with the investigating detective and made incriminating written and video statements. Defendant moved to suppress his statements, which was denied, and the statements were admitted at trial.

“When a defendant in custody unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel, any purported waiver of that right obtained in the absence of counsel is ineffective … . People v Roman, 2019 NY Slip Op 06719, First Dept 9-24-19

 

, , ,

COURT OF APPEALS 2009 RULING THAT LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS CANNOT DEREGULATE NEW YORK CITY APARTMENTS APPLIES RETROACTIVELY IN THIS CLASS ACTION FOR RENT OVERCHARGES BROUGHT BY TENANTS; THE CLASS, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED AFTER THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter too comprehensive to fairly summarize here, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the class action by tenants in defendant’s large housing complex properly sought repayment of rent overcharges. The complaint alleged the landlord, under New York City rent control and stabilization law, and pursuant to a 2009 Court of Appeals case (Roberts v Tishman, 13 NY3d 270), could not deregulate apartments while receiving so-called “J-51” tax benefits. The landlord argued unsuccessfully that the Roberts decision did not apply retroactively. The First Department remanded the case for recalculation of the overcharges and further held that Supreme Court should not have expanded the class. With regard to the expansion of the class, the court wrote:

CPLR 902 provides that a class action “may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits.” However, that provision also states that “[an] action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under [CPLR] 901 have been satisfied.” Those requirements are generally referred to as “numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” (City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 508 [2010]). CPLR 902 further requires the court to consider a range of factors before certifying a class.

Here, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in expanding the class. The court’s order failed to analyze whether class action status was warranted based on the criteria set forth in CPLR 901 and CPLR 902. Conducting that analysis ourselves, we find that the redefined class represents such a fundamental change in the theory of plaintiffs’ case that expansion of the class would be improper. When the class was originally certified, plaintiffs maintained, and the court agreed, that its members were tenants who received deregulated leases while the complex was receiving J-51 benefits. The expanded class, however, would include tenants who never lived in the complex during defendant’s receipt of J-51 benefits, and who received regulated leases for their tenancies. Thus, the legal issues for this group of tenants are separate and distinct from those of the original class. Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 06578, First Dept 9-17-19

 

, , ,

A PRIVILEGE UNDER WISCONSIN INSURANCE LAW APPLIED IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION CONCERNING INSURANCE CLAIMS STEMMING FROM THE ISSUANCE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a privilege under Wisconsin Law protected certain emails and documents generated in a Wisconsin action by the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance concerning the payment of insurance claims stemming from the issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities, The decision doesn’t explain the underlying facts:

The Commissioner appointed a Special Deputy Commissioner (SDC) to oversee all activities … from Ambac’s [plaintiffs’] New York offices, and, at the SDC’s direction, plaintiffs commenced this action in New York, asserting claims of fraudulent inducement and breach of contract in connection with the policies Ambac issued on the securitizations sponsored by defendant. When defendant demanded the production of certain emails and other documents maintained by the SDC, plaintiffs responded by claiming the statutory privilege held by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) under Wisconsin law (see Wis Stat § 601.465). Defendant argued that New York law should be applied because, in adjudicating privilege issues, New York courts must apply the law of the place where the evidence will be introduced at trial or where the discovery proceeding is located. Supreme Court, after engaging in an interest-balancing analysis, determined that the Wisconsin statutory privilege was applicable, and denied defendant’s motion to compel. We affirm.

New York courts “routinely apply the law of the place where the evidence in question will be introduced at trial or the location of the discovery proceeding when deciding privilege issues” … . However, there are circumstances in which an interest-balancing analysis is properly undertaken to decide whether another state’s law should govern the evidentiary privilege … .  This is a case that presents such circumstances … . Ambac Assur. Corp. v Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06574, First Dept 9-17-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES FOR MANUAL LABOR PURSUANT TO THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF WAS PAID BI-WEEKLY; THE LABOR LAW REQUIRES PAYMENT WEEKLY (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department determined plaintiff stated causes of action under the Labor Law stemming from her employer’s paying her bi-weekly, rather than weekly, for manual labor, in violation of Labor Law 191. Plaintiff sought liquidated damages, interest and attorney’s fees pursuant to Labor Law 198 (1-a).  The bi-weekly payments were deemed “underpayment” and the Labor Law provided plaintiff with a private right of action:

… [T]he term underpayment encompasses the instances where an employer violates the frequency requirements of section 191(1)(a) but pays all wages due before the commencement of an action. “In the absence of any controlling statutory definition, we construe words of ordinary import with their usual and commonly understood meaning, and in that connection have regarded dictionary definitions as useful guideposts’ in determining the meaning of a word or phrase” … . The word underpayment is the noun for the verb underpay; underpay is defined as “to pay less than what is normal or required” … . The moment that an employer fails to pay wages in compliance with section 191(1)(a), the employer pays less than what is required. …

In interpreting the liquidated damages provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the Supreme Court has held that, regardless of whether an employee has been paid wages owed before the commencement of the action, the statute provides a liquidated damages remedy for the “failure to pay the statutory minimum on time,” … Labor Law § 198(1-a), although not identical to the FLSA liquidated damages provision (29 USC § 216[b]), has “no meaningful differences, and both are designed to deter wage-and-hour violations in a manner calculated to compensate the party harmed” … . …

Labor Law § 198(1-a) expressly provides a private right of action for a violation of Labor Law § 191. Defendant’s position that no private right of action exists is dependent on its erroneous assertion that the late payment of wages is not an underpayment of wages.

Furthermore, even if Labor Law § 198 does not expressly authorize a private action for violation of the requirements of Labor Law § 191, a remedy may be implied since plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted, the recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the statute and the creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme … . Vega v CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06459, First Dept 9-10-19

 

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNGUARDED ELEVATED PLATFORM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been granted in this “fall from an elevated platform” case:

Plaintiff electrician was injured when he fell from an elevated concrete platform on his work site that did not have safety rails or stairs, and over which he was repeatedly required to traverse to access an electrical panel to do his work. This accident falls within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), because plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection, such as a guardrail or stairs, to prevent the risk posed by the physically significant elevation differential … .

Since plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 claim is premised upon [defendant’s] alleged notice and failure to remedy the dangerous condition of materials stored haphazardly on the platform where plaintiff fell, it should have been sustained … . Coombes v Shawmut Design & Constr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06455. 9-10-19​

 

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