You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING A GRINDER WHICH DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY GUARD, THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured using a grinder that did not have a safety guard:

Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5(c)(3), which provides that “[a]ll safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged,” applies to the instant action and is sufficiently specific to support a section 241(6) claim … . Here, plaintiff testified that he was given a hand-held grinder from which the safety guard had been removed by his employer to install an over-sized disc blade. Plaintiff was then instructed to use this grinder to cut concrete, over his objections, and was injured when the grinder got stuck, kicked back, knocked him to the ground, and cut into his foot. This testimony raises a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant breached its nondelegable duty “to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety” to plaintiff … . Contreras v 3335 Decatur Ave. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04663, First Dept 6-11-13

 

,

PLAINTIFF, WHICH PUT UP ITS EQUITY INTERESTS IN 11 PROPERTIES TO SECURE A $71 MILLION LOAN FROM DEFENDANT, SUED TO DECLARE VOID THE UCC NONJUDICIAL SALE OF THE PROPERTIES BY DEFENDANT, THAT ASPECT OF THE SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant’s cause of action seeking to declare void the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sale of plaintiff’s property, which was put up as collateral for a loan made to plaintiff by defendant, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, Atlas, put up its equity interest in 11 properties as collateral for a $71 million loan from defendant, Macquarie. Atlas and Macquarie were unable to agree on an extension of time for repayment of the loan. After a UCC nonjudicial sale held by Macquarie, at which Atlas submitted bids, another buyer outbid Atlas. Atlas sued to void the sale:

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs the enforcement of a creditor’s security interest. “The underlying purposes and policies of the [UCC] as a whole are to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions” … . Here, plaintiff … (Atlas), the debtor, is asking this Court to unwind a UCC sale of the equity interest in 11 commercial properties, which was collateral for Atlas’s $71 million mezzanine loan, borrowed from defendant … (Macquarie), the secured creditor. It is difficult to see how such an action would simplify the laws governing commercial transactions. Rather, if UCC sales could be unwound, it would only serve to muddy the waters surrounding nonjudicial sales conducted pursuant to article 9 of the UCC, and to deter potential buyers from bidding in nonjudicial sales, which would, in turn, harm the debtor and the secured party attempting to collect after a default. Moreover … Atlas’s argument does not have support in the plain reading of the UCC nor in existing case law. Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower, LLC v Macquarie Tex. Loan Holder LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04495, First Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND VACATED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and vacated the default judgment as untimely, Plaintiff had timely moved for a default judgment. Although sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right, the First Department deemed the notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal:

An order issued sua sponte is not appealable as of right (see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). However, given the nature of the motion court’s sua sponte relief in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and grant such leave (…CPLR 5701[c]).

The record is clear that plaintiff had moved for a default judgment within one year, and thus, the motion court’s sua sponte vacature of the judgment and dismissal of the complaint as untimely was in error … . In view of this decision, the merits of defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment are no longer moot and it is remanded back to the trial court for consideration on the merits. New Globaltex Co., Ltd. v Zhe Lin, 2019 NY Slip Op 04456, First Dept 6-6-19

 

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, CLOTHING AND SHELTER; EVIDENCE SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT, DESPITE MOTHER’S HOME-SCHOOLING EFFORTS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department reversed Family Court’s finding of neglect and derivative neglect for failure to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter, The evidence, i.e., the caseworker’s progress notes and the testimony of a police officer based upon a single visit, was deemed insufficient. However, the majority, over a two-justice dissent, found the evidence of educational neglect and derivative neglect sufficient. The older children were not attending school, but the college-educated mother was home-schooling them:

Although the mother’s living conditions were unsuitable, the record presents no basis for a conclusion that the children’s “physical, mental or emotional condition ha[d] been impaired or [wa]s in imminent danger of becoming impaired” as a result of their exposure to such environment (Family Court Act § 1012[f][i]). The officer’s testimony provided no information about the physical or mental condition of the children at the time of her visit, and petitioner did not introduce the results of the medical examination of the children conducted on the day when they were first removed from the home. …

The court found that the mother did not establish that she was qualified to teach, especially with respect to elementary-school-aged children. The mother admitted that she knew her educational plan was not approved by the Board of Education, yet, she never followed up with an approved individual home instruction plan as required by the Board of Education. The court found that the mother failed to show that her instruction was substantially equivalent to that in public school, and that the children were educated for at least as many hours as provided in public school … . The court further found that the mother’s use of college-level textbooks and testing the children using high school examination tests did not constitute appropriate education for elementary-school-aged children. We defer to these findings of the Family Court.  Matter of Puah B. (Autumn B.–Hemerd B.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04451, First Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT INFANT PLAINTIFF WOULD MOVE LOGS STACKED AT THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN FALL WHEN JUMPING FROM LOG TO LOG, INFANT PLAINTIFF CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND ASSUMED THE RISK (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined the out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Infant plaintiff (Deandre) had moved some logs from the side of the property and was jumping from log to log when he fell:

Defendant testified that he had had the tree cut down and the logs stacked along a property fence line several years earlier and had never seen the logs anywhere else on the property. Deandre testified that he and his friends had arranged the logs in a line and were jumping from log to log when he fell. The record shows that no one had complained to defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, about the logs before the accident, and Deandre testified that he had been playing on them for about 10 minutes when he fell.

Plaintiffs contend that it was foreseeable that children would move the logs. However, absent evidence of earlier incidents involving the logs or any complaint made to defendant about the logs, the possibility of children playing with them does not render the presence of the logs in the backyard foreseeably dangerous … .

Plaintiffs also failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether Deandre could fully appreciate the risks of jumping onto logs. As Deandre himself created the danger by setting up and jumping on the logs while playing with his friends, plaintiffs cannot show that he was faced with a risk that was unassumed, S.-B. v Radincic, 2019 NY Slip Op 04324, First Dept 6-4-19

 

,

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, THE WITNESS’S CLAIM HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE EVENTS WAS NOT SO DAMAGING TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE AS TO ALLOW THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that admitting the grand jury testimony of a witness was reversible error. The witness’s testimony at trial that he couldn’t remember the events was not so damaging to the People’s case as to justify impeachment:

The People concede that the trial court erred in admitting the grand jury testimony of a witness indicating that defendant fired an errant shot that struck a bystander as defendant and a companion fled from another group following a verbal altercation. Specifically, the People acknowledge that the testimony was not admissible under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule, because the witness did not testify at trial that the grand jury testimony “correctly represented his knowledge and recollection when made” … , and was not admissible for impeachment purposes under CPL 60.35 because the witness’s trial testimony that he could not remember the relevant events did not “affirmatively damage[] the case of the party calling him” … . People v Folk, 2019 NY Slip Op 04321, First Dept 6-4-19

 

INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH REFERRED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ OPERATE A POWER BUGGY IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CLAIM, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A POWER BUGGY OPERATED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over a two-justice dissent, determined that an Industrial Code provision requiring that a power buggy be operated by a “designated person” was specific enough to support a Labor Law 241 (6) claim. Plaintiff was injured when he was struck in the back by a power buggy operated by someone who was horsing around and fell off the buggy before it struck plaintiff. The First Department searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff:

We agree with the dissent that the regulation’s requirement that a “trained and competent operator . . . shall” operate the power buggy is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct. However, since the term “designated person” has been held to be specific, 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) is a proper predicate for a claim under Labor Law § 241(6).

The dissent’s concern that we are exposing a defendant to liability for injury caused by a power buggy operated by an unauthorized person is misplaced … . We note that the Court of Appeals has reiterated that, while the duty imposed by Labor Law § 241(6) may be “onerous[,] . . . it is one the Legislature quite reasonably deemed necessary by reason of the exceptional dangers inherent in connection with constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith'” … , and that “[t]he Industrial Code should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” … .

Moreover, liability under Labor Law § 241(6) “is dependent on the application of a specific Industrial Code provision and a finding that the violation of the provision was a result of negligence” … .

The fact that the operating engineer was “horse playing” prior to operating the power buggy does not absolve defendant from liability under Labor Law § 241(6) … . ​Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2019 NY Slip Op 04302, First Dept 5-30-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this toxic tort case was properly denied. Plaintiff, an evening cleaner in an office building, allege she was injured by inhaling toxic fumes from a paint stripping product used by a defendant’s subcontractor (Island Painting):

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the premises in time to take corrective measures … . Defendant submitted no evidence with respect to notice. However, there is evidence in the record that defendant had superintendents on site who oversaw the subcontractors’ work and that defendant had a duty to notify and warn the building owner and its occupants of hazardous work undertaken on the project site so as to safeguard the building’s occupants against exposure to such hazards. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant knew of the scheduled use of the paint stripper and of the product’s toxicity and yet failed to warn the building owner and occupants to prevent harm to them. These issues of fact as to negligence also preclude summary judgment in defendant’s favor on its claim for contractual indemnification by Island Painting … . Arias v Recife Realty Co., N.V., 2019 NY Slip Op 04269, First Dept 5-30-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL MISCALCULATED THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION, WHICH CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defense counsel’s failure to properly calculate the days of delay attributable to the People for the speedy trial motion constituted ineffective assistance:

Defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel … with regard to his speedy trial motion. In his CPL 30.30(2) motion for defendant’s release, defense counsel mistakenly calculated 99 days of includable time, instead of the correct calculation of 103 days. The People conceded the 99 days, and the court released defendant. When defense counsel thereafter moved to dismiss the indictment under CPL 30.30(1), defense counsel and the prosecutor repeated that error in calculating the delay as 99 days, with the court ultimately finding only 181 days of includable time and denying the motion. Had counsel correctly calculated 103 days of chargeable time, the includable time would have totaled 185 days, rather than 181, and defendant’s speedy trial claim would have been meritorious. We have considered and rejected the People’s arguments concerning the 63-day period following defendant’s uncontested motion for release from custody, which the court found to be includable in its ultimate calculation on the dismissal motion. People v Coulibaly, 2019 NY Slip Op 04289, First Dept 5-30-19

 

FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the petitioners’ article 16 proceedings were timely and the designating petitions were not facially defective:

Petitioners’ article 16 special proceedings should be deemed timely because petitioners did not receive notice that their designating petitions contained defects within the 14-day statutory period prescribed by Election Law § 16-102(2) and they acted with due diligence by promptly commencing the article 16 proceeding after that period ended … .

Petitioners’ designating petitions were not facially defective because they substantially complied with the Election Law … . Here, the designating petitions merely omitted the city, state and/or zip codes of the candidates’ residences. Where a petition only contains errors regarding an incorrect or incomplete address, including where the name of the city is omitted, a petitioner has substantially complied with the Election Law and their designating petitions should not be invalidated as defective … . Matter of Merber v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 04231, First Dept 5-29-19

 

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