You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE CONTRACT, QUANTUM MERUIT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs’ complaint stated causes of action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel. The contract between plaintiff, a real estate broker, and defendant, a real estate developer, gave plaintiff the exclusive right to broker sales of luxury apartments in return for a reduced commission rate. The complaint alleged defendant accepted plaintiff’s services for two years but refused to pay after defendant received the benefits of the bargain:

Plaintiffs’ failure to identify in the complaint the specific national real estate sales and marketing agency with which plaintiffs were going to partner, along with the terms of such partnership, is not fatal to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. The alleged contract would imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to which plaintiffs would propose reasonable entities and defendants would reasonably accept or reject those proposals … . … As to the start and end date of the agreement, it can be inferred from the allegations in the complaint … . With regard to the identity of the promisor, the complaint indicates that all negotiations and interactions were with defendant Kuzinez. …

The complaint should not have been dismissed pursuant to the statute of frauds. As an initial matter, defendants did not move to dismiss based on the statute of frauds and plaintiffs were not afforded the opportunity to address the issue … . Moreover, the statute of frauds is inapplicable here as General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) specifically exempts contracts to pay compensation to licensed real estate brokers, which is the type of contract alleged by plaintiffs.

The declaratory judgment cause of action, which seeks a declaration that plaintiffs have the right to serve as exclusive broker for all residential sales for the subject development, should be reinstated based on our finding that the complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for breach of contract.

Additionally, the quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel claims state causes of action. As to quantum meruit, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs provided services to defendants at a reduced cost or no cost, based on the promiseof the oral agreement …. As to promissory estoppel, the complaint alleges that defendants promised plaintiffs that they would serve as exclusive broker and that, in reasonable reliance on that promise, plaintiffs agreed, among other things, to substantially reduced commissions … . Elhanani v Kuzinez, 2019 NY Slip Op 04042, First Dept 5-23-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE VALET PARKING SERVICE WITH WHICH IT CONTRACTED IF THE RESTAURANT HAD THE ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF THE CONTRACTOR, IF ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLY, AND UNDER AN AGENCY THEORY, THE RESTAURANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the restaurant’s (Dolphin’s) motion for summary judgment in this action alleging negligence on the part of a valet parking service (APV) with which the restaurant had contracted was properly denied:

A restaurant providing valet parking services can be held liable for the negligence of the service whose attendants are alleged to have caused an accident to a third party. This is the case even where the service is an independent contractor with which the restaurant has contracted … .

This duty arises [under Espinal] when there is an ability and opportunity to control the conduct of the restaurant’s contractors and an awareness of the need to do so. Thus, Dolphin cannot assert that it signed a contract with the valet parking service and then “covered its eyes with a blindfold”; rather, Dolphin was required to select a company “with, at the minimum, both appropriate insurance and competent drivers”. Defendant restaurant w … as able to decline to enter into any contract for valet services it felt insufficient, and therefore in the best position to protect against the risk of harm.

Dolphin similarly failed to demonstrate that it did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to others or that APV entirely displaced its duty to maintain the valet parking area safely … . Indeed, the evidence showed, inter alia, that the restaurant and the valet service communicated on a daily basis to determine proper staffing. The restaurant, further, obtained parking spots for the valet service to utilize on its behalf. The restaurant informed the valet service in advance of functions so that staffing could be arranged. The parties’ agreement similarly provided that service was provided “as requested” by the restaurant, and that it was the restaurant’s obligation to provide the schedule for each week.

Dolphin may also be liable under the doctrine of ostensible agency or apparent authority and thus estopped from denying liability for an entity it held out as its agent … . Evans v Norecaj, 2019 NY Slip Op 04029, First Dept 5-23-19

 

,

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING PETITIONER’S INJURIES, THE FACTS SUPPORTING THE CITY’S NEGLIGENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION WITH A MODICUM OF EFFORT, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE RELATING TO THE DELAY, PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY WAS NOT FATAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner’s motion to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner, a medical technician, alleged she was struck by an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction (DOC) while the inmate was being treated at Bellevue Hospital. The petitioner reported and discussed the incident with a DOC captain (Obigumeda) on the day it happened and sought to file the notice of claim seven months late:

Supreme Court presumably agreed with respondent’s argument that it lacked notice because petitioner never specified that she had told Obigumeda the manner in which DOC was negligent (namely, by failing to ensure that a correction officer was present when she spoke with the inmate). We disagree.

To the extent that petitioner did not establish actual notice because she did not specify that her description of the assault included a recitation of who was in the room, “municipal authorities have an obligation to obtain the missing information if that can be done with a modicum of effort” … . Here, negligence is the only theory of liability that could be implied by petitioner’s conversations with Obigumeda and, in any event, he could have determined who was in the room during the course of his investigation with “a modicum of effort.” To hold otherwise would turn the statute into a sword, contrary to its remedial purpose … . …

… [R]espondent never provided Supreme Court with any evidence to substantiate that it was prejudiced by the mere passage of time. Instead, respondent made “[g]eneric arguments and inferences” which cannot establish substantial prejudice “in the absence of facts in the record to support such a finding” … .

While petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for service of her late notice of claim, the lack of excuse is not fatal here … . Matter of Rodriguez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03921, First Dept 5-21-19

 

, , ,

THE CITY AND DEFENDANT CORRECTION OFFICER ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ITS EMPLOYEES’ VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983, THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECTION OFFICER FOR “JANE DOE” AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine could not be relied upon to substitute the name of a correction officer for “Jane Doe” in the complaint in this 42 USC 1983 action. The correction officer and the city are not “united in interest.” The city cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violation of 42 USC 1983:

In this action alleging a claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and 42 USC § 1983, plaintiff did not serve the Jane Doe correction officer defendant before the statute of limitations ran. Although the claims against the intended defendant arise out of the same transaction as the claims alleged in the complaint, plaintiff cannot rely on the relation-back doctrine. The correction officer and defendant City are not “united in interest” because “the City cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983” … . Nor can plaintiff’s more than two-year delay in seeking to add the new defendant as a party after learning her identity be characterized as a mistake for relation-back purposes … .

Plaintiff’s reliance on CPLR 1024 is unavailing, as he does not demonstrate diligence in seeking to identify the unknown correction officer prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … . Burbano v New York City, 2019 NY Slip Op 03937, First Dept 5-21-19

 

,

PETITIONER, IN THIS JUDICIARY LAW 509 PROCEEDING, CAN NOT COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF JURORS TO REVEAL THE RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS AND DATES OF JURY SERVICE IN ORDER TO IMPEACH RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY THAT HE RESIDED IN PETITIONER’S BUILDING IN 2008 AND 2009 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO LOFT LAW PROTECTION UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the petitioner in this Judiciary Law 509 (a) proceeding was not entitled to compel the Commissioner of Jurors to disclose respondent’s (Swezey’s) home and mailing address, as well as the dates of Swezey’s jury service. Petitioner was seeking to disprove Swezey’s testimony that he resided in a building owned by petitioner in 2008 and 2009 and was therefore entitled to Loft Law protection under the Multiple Dwelling Law:

Judiciary Law § 509(a) requires that juror “questionnaires and records shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed except to the county jury board or as permitted by the appellate division.” The purpose of the statute is to “provide a cloak of confidentiality for the information which the [juror] questionnaires contain” and to shield all information from disclosure in order to protect a juror’s privacy interest and/or safety (Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Sise , 71 NY2d 146, 152 [1987] … ). This blanket rule bars an individual from seeking any juror records unless the individual “present[s] some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the records would provide relevant evidence” (People v Guzman , 60 NY2d 403, 415 [1983] …).

Here, petitioner failed to provide the necessary factual predicate to obtain these confidential records. Petitioner’s sole reason for requesting Swezey’s juror records is to impeach his testimony … . However, disclosure for the purpose of impairing someone’s credibility has been expressly rejected by the Court of Appeals in People v Guzman.  Matter of A. Trenkmann Estate, Inc. v Tingling, 2019 NY Slip Op 03923, First Dept 5-21-19

 

, , ,

MOLINEUX/SANDOVAL HEARING IN THE HARVEY WEINSTEIN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT PROSECUTION WAS PROPERLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND THE RECORD OF THE HEARING WAS PROPERLY SEALED, NEWS-MEDIA COMPANIES’ PETITION TO UNSEAL THE RECORD DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the Article 78 petition brought by news-media companies seeking to unseal the Molineux/Sandoval hearing transcript in the felony sexual misconduct prosecution of Harvey Weinstein. The presiding judge had closed the hearing to the public and sealed the record of it:

While the First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials … , this right of access may be limited where courtroom closure is necessitated by a compelling state governmental interest, and where the closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest … . Such compelling interests may include the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including the right to “fundamental fairness in the jury selection process” … . …

Proceedings cannot be closed unless specific findings are made on the record, demonstrating that “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest” … . Where the interest asserted is the right of the accused to a fair trial, specific findings must be made demonstrating that, “there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent,” and “reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights” … .

The subject matter of the Molineux /Sandoval hearing – allegations of prior uncharged sexual offenses by the defendant, the admissibilty of which is disputed – was likely to be prejudicial and inflammatory. Further, some or all of the allegations may have been determined to be inadmissible at trial, or may not be offered at trial even if found potentially admissible. Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, the People have represented that some of the information has not yet been made public. Matter of New York Times Co. v Burke, 2019 NY Slip Op 03903, First Dept 5-16-19

 

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WAS ‘NOT SURE’ HE COULD BE IMPARTIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a prospective juror should have been granted:

The challenged panelist made a statement reflecting a state of mind likely to preclude the rendering of an impartial verdict (see CPL 270.20[1][b]), and the court did not elicit an unequivocal assurance that in rendering a verdict based on the evidence, the panelist could set aside any bias … . The juror expressly stated that he was “not sure” he could be impartial in a case involving a registered sex offender. His general statement about needing to hear the facts did not address his ability to overcome the specific bias he had expressed. “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another”  … . People v Rodriguez, 2019 NY Slip Op 03734, First Dept 5-14-19

 

BROWN PAPER ON TOP OF GREEN DUST ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED A SLIPPERY CONDITION ON THE FLOOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged brown paper on top of green dust (used to keep down dust) created a dangerous slippery condition which caused his slip and fall:

The motion court improperly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(d). The alleged presence of green dust on the floor created a triable issue as to whether a “foreign substance” created a slippery condition on the floor, in violation of this Code section, and whether such condition caused plaintiff’s accident … .

Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should similarly be reinstated as the court should not have analyzed plaintiff’s accident under the manner and means standard, but should instead have applied the dangerous condition standard … . The green dust was a dangerous condition that existed prior to plaintiff’s arrival at the job site it was not part of the work plaintiff was performing … . As such, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the general contractor … had notice of the hazardous condition of the floor … . In addition, the owner … failed to demonstrate the absence of actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition on its part, since it failed to point to any probative evidence on this issue … . DeMercurio v 605 W. 42nd Owner LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03550 First Dept 5-7-19

 

,

PROVIDING WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL, HOT LIQUID CAN BE A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that “defendant is entitled to a new trial because the court provided written instructions to the jury, at its request, but over defendant’s objection (see People v Johnson , 81 NY2d 980 [1993]).”  The court also noted that the jury could have reasonably found that the hot liquid thrown by defendant qualified as a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law §§ 10.00[10],[13]; see also People v Adolph , 299 AD2d 257, 257 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 579 [2003]).”  People v Peralta, 2019 NY Slip Op 03539, First Dept 5-7-19

 

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. A cable tray that was on top of two ladders fell on plaintiff’s head. The court further noted that USIS was liable as an agent of the owner because the subcontract delegated the authority to control the work to USIS, and AECOM. the lessee, was liable as an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1):

The cable tray that fell on plaintiff’s head from atop two ladders was an object that required securing to prevent it from falling … . The distance the tray fell was not de minimis and “the harm to plaintiff was the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity” upon the unsecured cable tray … . Moreover, securing the cable tray against falling would not have been contrary to the purpose of the work … .

Supreme Court correctly concluded that USIS Systems was liable under Labor Law § 240(1) as an agent of the owner … . Here, the terms of the subcontract by which USIS Systems subcontracted the work to USIS Electric demonstrate that USIS Systems had been delegated authority to direct and control the work … . Moreover, as premises lessee which contracted for the work, AECOM was an owner within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Tropea v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03533, First Dept 5-7-19

 

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