You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

THE DEPOSIT OF FULL PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN A COURT MONITORED ESCROW ACCOUNT DID NOT STOP THE ACCRUAL OF POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the deposit of full payment of judgments placed in a court monitored escrow account were subject to the accrual of post-judgment interest:

Defendants’ deposit of full payment on the judgments entered against it to a court monitored escrow account (the Monitorship Account) was not unconditional, such that it did not stop the accrual of post-judgment interest … . Although the Monitorship Order expressly directed the Monitor to collect the judgment amounts and expressly provides for the collection of “pre- and post-judgment interest,” such funds could not be further transferred until further order of the court. Moreover, the Monitorship Order reflects that the parties were not waiving “any rights, defenses or claims not set forth in the agreed order” by stipulating to the appointment of such Monitor. Accordingly, defendants’ payment to the Monitorship Account was conditioned on defendants preserving both their defenses to plaintiff’s claims, and defendants’ direct claims to those funds.

Contrary to defendants’ arguments, the payment to the Monitorship Account was not a “deposit to the court,” as it was not “pursuant to an order of the court, made upon motion” (CPLR 5021[a][3]). Rather under the circumstances, the Monitorship Account functioned simply as an escrow account while the defendants continued to oppose plaintiff’s claims and pursue their own. Triadou SPV S.A. v CF 135 Flat LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06453, First Dept 9-10-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE EASEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED IN PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CHAIN OF TITLE, IT WAS INDEXED UNDER A BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER SYSTEM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE EASEMENT AND WAS NOT A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a detailed opinion by Justice Friedman, determined a reasonable title search would have turned up an easement on the subject property. Therefore, plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser of the empty lot (57 Crosby). The interesting opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. The following excerpt provides the flavor of the reasoning:

The question presented … is whether plaintiff, when it purchased 57 Crosby in 2011, had constructive notice of the 1981 easement, notwithstanding that the indexing of the easement had not been changed by the City Register when 57 Crosby was subdivided from Lot 30 in 1984 and reassigned its previous designation of Lot 9.

… [T]he answer to the foregoing question does not turn on whether the 1981 easement would have been found in a search in 2011 of the direct chain of title to 57 Crosby. Almost 40 years ago, the Court of Appeals held that “the rule limiting constructive notice to recorded conveyances that are within the purchaser’s direct chain of title” does not apply “to instances in which the purchaser had access to a block and lot’ or tract indexing system,” such as the one in use in New York City … . … “[I]n counties using a block and lot’ indexing system, a purchaser is charged with record notice of all matters indexed under the block and lot numbers corresponding to the purchaser’s property, regardless of whether such information also appears in his or her direct chain of title” … . Thus, although … the 1981 easement was not recorded within plaintiff’s direct chain of title, that circumstance has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal … . Akasa Holdings, LLC v 214 Lafayette House, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06447, First Dept 9-3-19

 

,

THE INSURED DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS IN THIS NO-FAULT POLICY CASE, ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IRRATIONALLY IGNORED THE CONTROLLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the arbitrator, granted the insurer’s petition to vacate the arbitration award in this no-fault policy case:

The master arbitrator’s award was arbitrary because it irrationally ignored the controlling law that the no-fault policy issued by petitioner was void ab initio due to respondent’s assignor’s failure to attend duly scheduled independent medical exams … . Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Top Q. Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06445, First Dept 9-3-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHICH PRECLUDES DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Defendants’ presented evidence of the janitorial schedule for a particular day which was deemed sufficient to preclude liability because plaintiff did not demonstrate the schedule was manifestly unreasonable.  And plaintiff’s testimony the defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet condition on the stairs:

Defendants’ superintendent offered testimony as to the janitorial schedule to be followed on a particular day. An established reasonable cleaning routine precludes the imposition of liability … . Where, as here, the incident occurs outside of the scheduled cleaning routine, plaintiff’s failure to raise a factual issue that such routine was manifestly unreasonable so as to require altering it warrants dismissal of the complaint … .

Furthermore, plaintiff testified that there was no wet condition on the stairs when he left the building, that upon his return a short while later he observed an alleged wet condition on the stairs, that he did not notify anyone of such condition, and that as a result of this condition he slipped and fell on the stairs as he was leaving the building a second time. Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrates that defendants did not have actual notice of the purported wet condition, or constructive notice given that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it … . Thomas v Sere Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06443, First Dept 9-3-19

,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant’s in this elevator accident case. Plaintiff alleged the elevator door closed too fast and his thumb was caught in the closing door. Plaintiff alleged he had complained to the building superintendent, a building maintenance employee and the management company about the door closing too fast. Both parties submitted affidavits from experts:

The superintendent-in-training on the date of the accident testified that he did not receive any complaints regarding problems with the elevator door. The field mechanic for [the elevator service company] testified that he did not complete any repair work with respect to the door opening and closing too quickly. He did, however, replace the elevator shoe which is a necessary component for the elevator door to be able to close … .

Plaintiff … testified that prior to his accident he had complained to the then superintendent, another building maintenance employee, and the management company numerous times regarding the velocity with which the elevator door closed. Plaintiff testified further that during one of his conversations with the management company regarding the elevator door, he was told that management would send a service company out to address the issue. Additionally, plaintiff testified that approximately two months before his accident, he witnessed a friend get hit in the shoulder by the fast closing elevator door, and that plaintiff and his mother reported this incident to the then superintendent and the management company.

The parties also presented conflicting expert affidavits regarding the potential causes of the alleged elevator door malfunction, including the purpose of the elevator shoe, and the relevance of the velocity with which the door closed as it pertained to the cause of plaintiff’s injury, which only further precludes a grant of summary judgment … . Mable v 384 E. Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06442, First Dept 9-3-19

 

, ,

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

 

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