You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN A CEILING TILE DROPPED, THE LADDER WIGGLED, AND PLAINTIFF FELL; PLANTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. It was enough to demonstrate the A-frame ladder wiggled when a ceiling tile dropped unexpectedly and there was nothing for plaintiff to grab on to:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his deposition testimony which showed that the A-frame ladder he was using to perform overhead ceiling-wiring work proved inadequate as a safety device … . Furthermore, we have repeatedly held that “‘[i]t is irrelevant that plaintiff inspected the ladder and found it to be in good order before using it, as [a] plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim'” … . Plaintiff testified that he was using both hands to perform the overhead ceiling work, when he was suddenly “jolted” by an unexpected drop of a ceiling tile that he was handling, resulting in a “wiggle” in the ladder, which preceded his loss of balance and eventual fall, as there was nothing available for plaintiff to grab onto to brace himself against a fall.

Defendants fail to raise an issue of fact. Contrary to their contention, plaintiff’s fall from the ladder was “directly related to the work that he was performing, as opposed to his own misstep” or an unexplained loss of balance … . To the extent defendants argue that the ladder did not fall until plaintiff first lost his balance, such argument does not, based on the facts here, show that the ladder was an adequate safety device for plaintiff’s task (… [It is “no moment whether the ladder shook prior to plaintiff’s fall, or as defendants maintain, after plaintiff lost his balance and grabbed the top of it to steady himself. In either event, the ladder was an inadequate safety device”]). Daniello v J.T. Magen & Co. Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 03649, First Dept 6-17-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder when a ceiling tile dropped, the ladder wiggled, and plaintiff fell because there was nothing for him to grab on to. That is enough for summary judgment on the ground the ladder was not an adequate safety device. There is no need to demonstrate the ladder was defective.

 

,

A WAIVER OF APPEAL DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CHALLENGE TO A PROBATION CONDITION ALLOWING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES; THE CONDITION ALLOWING ALLOWING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOR DRUGS WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined (1) a waiver of appeal does not preclude a challenge to a probation condition allowing warrantless searches, and (2) there was no justification for the condition allowing warrantless searches for drugs:

Defendant’s appeal waiver does not foreclose his challenge to the condition of probation requiring that he consent to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle, and home for weapons, drugs, and drug paraphernalia … , which also does not require preservation … . To the extent this condition authorized the Department of Probation to conduct warrantless searches for weapons, we find that it was “reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so” … , “given that he was armed with a sharp object when he committed this violent offense” … .

However, the portion of the condition of probation authorizing warrantless searches by a probation officer for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia “was not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation” … . Defendant’s crime “did not appear connected to the sale or use of drugs” (id.), he was not “under the influence of any substance” when he committed the offense, and he “had no history of offenses involving substance abuse” … . People v Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 03654, First Dept 6-17-25

Practice Point: A wavier of appeal does not preclude a challenge to a probation condition allowing warrantless searches.

Practice Point: A condition of probation allowing warrantless searches for drugs is not appropriate where there is no history of drug offenses.

 

,

THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE THE MATTER BEFORE MOVING TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS; THE FAILURE TO CONFERENCE THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer or compel compliance with discovery demands should not have been denied on the ground plaintiff failed to first conference the matter as required by the court’s Part Rules:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to first conference the matter with the court in accordance with its Part Rules. The court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval … . Reyes v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03545, First Dept 6-10-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s failure to comply with Supreme Court’s Part Rule requiring a conference before moving to compel discovery was not a valid ground for denying the motion. A court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval.

 

,

MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND, WHO LIVED WITH MOTHER AND DAUGHTER FOR FIVE MONTHS BEFORE ABUSING THE DAUGHTER, MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD” AND WAS THEREFORE A PROPER PARTY IN THIS ABUSE/NEGLECT PROCEEDING; COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming Family Court’s abuse finding against mother’s live-in boyfriend, Robert, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined Roberto met the criteria for “a person legally responsible” for the child, B.F. B.F. alleged Roberto touched her inner thigh and vagina. Both the majority and the dissenters go through the criteria for “a person legally responsible for the child” in great detail:

Family Court conducted a fact-finding hearing over several days. B.F. testified that Roberto lived with her and her mother for approximately five months. She stated that during the time they lived together, she and Roberto would “always talk to each other” and grew “very close.” * * *

B.F.’s mother testified that Roberto moved in a week after they started dating. Roberto came home around 6:00 p.m. and left around 7:00 a.m. for work. Roberto contributed $100 every week for rent, bills, and home expenses. * * *

The court credited the testimony of B.F. and her mother, which established that Roberto resided in the home for five months prior to the abuse.

The determination of whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a “fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the particular circumstances of each case” … . Factors to consider include “(1) ‘the frequency and nature of the contact,’ (2) ‘the nature and extent of the control exercised by the respondent over the child’s environment,’ (3) ‘the duration of the respondent’s contact with the child,’ and (4) ‘the respondent’s relationship to the child’s parent(s)'” … . These factors “are not meant to be exhaustive, but merely illustrate some of the salient considerations in making an appropriate determination” … . The weight given to each factor depends on the facts and circumstances of the case … . Matter of B.F. v Administration for Children’s Servs., 2025 NY Slip Op 03393, First Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an exhaustive discussion of the criteria for a “person legally responsible for the child” in the context of a neglect or abuse proceeding. Here mother’s boyfriend, who lived with mother and daughter for five months prior to the abuse of the daughter, was deemed to meet the criteria.

 

, ,

NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY INVOLVED SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR WEAPONS; THEREFORE THE PROBATION CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT SUBMIT TO SEARCHES OF HIS PERSON, VEHICLE AND HOME WAS STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, striking a probation condition, determined (1) the requirement that defendant submit to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle and home was not appropriate, and (2) the challenge to the probation condition survived defendant’s waiver of appeal:

Defendant’s challenge to the condition of probation requiring that he consent to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle, and home survives the appeal waiver … . “Defendant was not under the influence of any substance or armed with a weapon when he committed the crime of which he was convicted, and he had no history of offenses involving substance abuse or weapons” … . Accordingly, the consent-search condition was not necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life ( … see Penal Law § 65.10[1]), or reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation (see Penal Law § 65.10[2][l]), rendering the condition improperly imposed … . People v Avila, 2025 NY Slip Op 03286, First Dept 6-3-25

Practice Point: Where a defendant’s criminal history does not involve drugs or weapons, requiring defendant to submit to warrantless searches as a condition of probation is not supported.

 

WHETHER THE TRENCH WAS THREE OR SEVEN FEET DEEP, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A LADDER OR A RAMP TO DESCEND INTO IT BUT WAS TOLD TO JUMP DOWN; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when he jumped into an excavated trench. Plaintiff testified that the trench was five to seven feet deep and he asked for a ladder but was told to jump down. There was conflicting testimony about the depth of the trench which defendant claimed was 3 1/2 feet deep:

Plaintiff’s descent into the trench constituted an elevation-related hazard within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) requiring a ladder or ramp for proper protection … . Accordingly, plaintiff made a prima facie case that Navesink and SLS violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide a ladder or ramp to enable him to safely climb down into the trench, where he was assigned to shovel soil to even out the landscape at the bottom of the trench.

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The witnesses’ varying estimates of the depth of the excavated trench, ranging from around three feet to five feet to seven feet, do not present an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s accident resulted from a significant elevation differential … . McCormick v DiPersia, 2025 NY Slip Op 03019, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was injured when he jumped into a trench. There was conflicting testimony about the depth of the trench, three to seven feet. Whether the depth was three feet or seven feet, defendant was required to provide a ladder or a ramp to descend into it. Therefore, plaintiff, who was told to jump down, was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

THE PRESENTENCE INTERVIEW WAS CANCELLED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES; THEREFORE THE PRESENTENCE REPORT WAS DEVOID OF INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, HEALTH STATUS, MENTAL HEALTH AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE DEFICIENT PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s negotiated sentence, determined the failure to interview the defendant before creating the presentence report  was tantamount to the failure to conduct the mandatory presentence investigation. The defendant did not take any action to avoid the presentence interview which was scheduled but cancelled due to technical difficulties:

At sentencing, defense counsel confirmed that the presentence report was prepared without any interview because of technical difficulties. The court remarked this was “not unusual,” but directed that defendant be arraigned for sentence. In response to the court’s invitation for the parties to address any issues relevant to sentence, defense counsel stated only that he relied on the promised sentence. The court proceeded to impose sentence with no further discussion of the presentence report.

Presentence investigations of persons convicted of felonies are statutorily mandated, and a court may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of such an investigation (see CPL 390.20[1] …). The presentence report may be “the single most important document at both the sentencing and correctional levels of the criminal process” … , as it contains multiple categories of information concerning the defendant’s background and the subject offense … .

Because there was no presentence interview, the presentence report in this case was seriously deficient. The report was devoid of information regarding defendant’s education, employment history, health status, and mental health, each a statutorily prescribed category … . The report also noted that it had no information as to defendant’s motive. People v Pizzaro, 2025 NY Slip Op 03025, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: A presentence report which is incomplete because the defendant was never interviewed requires vacation of the sentence, notwithstanding that the sentence was in accordance with the plea agreement.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new “state action” hearing, determined defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to subpoena information about the store security guards’ employment should have been granted. The issue is whether the store security guards who detained the defendant in this grand larceny case were licensed to exercise police powers or acted as agents of the police. Defense counsel learned the name of the store’s lead investigator at the time of defendant’s detention on the eve of the state action hearing. The First Department noted that defense counsel could not properly subpoena the employment information without knowing the identities of the people involved:

… [W]e find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel a short adjournment. In denying the requested adjournment, the court found that defendant “could have done that [subpoena … records] a long time ago, maybe even when this appeal was being perfected.” On this appeal, the People make a similar argument that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the adjournment because defense counsel could have subpoenaed the materials during the pendency of this appeal. The problem with these arguments is that this Court had already recognized that, without information about the identity of the officers involved in defendant’s arrest, defense counsel was not in a position to meaningfully subpoena records … .

Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this is not the situation where defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence. In fact, as we held, without knowing the names of the store security guards involved in defendant’s detention, defendant was in no better position to subpoena the employer material than when he filed his initial motion. Thus, it was only upon learning the identity of one member of the security team that the defense could meaningfully begin to investigate whether the security guards were state actors. People v Sneed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03026, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is detained by store security guards, the detention may implicate constitutional protections if the security guards are licensed to exercise police powers or are agents of the police. The defense, therefore, may be entitled to a so-called “state action” hearing. To subpoena the appropriate store employment records, defense counsel is entitled to the identities of the security guards involved in defendant’s detention.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A STEP BROKE AS HE STEPPED ON IT; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SIGN THE STEP WAS DEFECTIVE; HOWEVER, THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON AN INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT A STAIRCASE BE “FREE OF DEFECTS,” PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action based upon a step which broke when plaintiff stepped on it should have been dismissed, but the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, based upon the same defective step, properly survived summary judgment:

Defendants, owner and construction manager, are entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims … . … [T]he testimony in the record, including plaintiff’s statements that he observed nothing wrong with the stairs when he ascended and descended several times on the day of his accident, demonstrates that there was no visible or apparent damage to the step that broke as he stepped on it … . Thus, any defect with the step was latent so that defendants could not have discovered it upon a reasonable inspection … . * * *

Supreme Court … properly denied summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, to the extent based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(f). Defendants fail to show that this provision, which “imposes a duty upon a defendant to provide a safe staircase, free of defects,” does not apply … . Instead, the evidence shows that the step was defective since it broke under plaintiff’s foot … . Solarte v Brearley Sch., 2025 NY Slip Op 02995, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was injured when a step broke under his weight. The Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action should have been dismissed because the defect in the step could not have been detected. However, the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, based on the same defective step, survived summary judgment because an Industrial Code provision requires that staircases be “free of defects”—an illustration of the stark difference between negligence-based liability and liability based on a regulatory violation.

 

, ,

GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) although the judge accurately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence three times, the judge failed to acknowledge the erroneous instruction, requiring reversal; (2) the judge should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a civil case in which the officer was alleged to have shot the plaintiff after plaintiff was subdued; and (3) the judge should have granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record:

Notwithstanding that the court instructed the trial jury accurately and at length with regard to the presumption in its preliminary instructions, in another instruction at a break in the testimony of the first witness, and in its closing instructions, the court did not satisfy the requirement, clearly enunciated in People v Harrison (85 NY2d 891 [1995]), that “to obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it” … . A withdrawal in explicit terms cannot be accomplished without acknowledging the erroneous instruction, identifying the error, and providing a correct instruction … .

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion, under the standard set forth in People v Smith (27 NY3d 652 [2016]), in not permitting cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a civil suit, in which a testifying police officer in the present case was a defendant alleged to have shot the plaintiff in the leg in that case after he was subdued by police officers. The existence of the suit provided a “good faith basis for inquiring,” and the allegations of excessive force were “relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness” … . In light of the principle “that the right of cross-examination is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process” … , the seriousness of the allegation that the officer accidentally shot a [*2]suspect in the leg was sufficient to allow inquiry into the facts underlying the lawsuit.

… [T]he court should have granted defendant’s motion pursuant to People v Gissendanner (48 NY2d 543 [1979]) to the extent of conducting an in camera review of the officer’s disciplinary record, rather than forbidding all cross-examination regarding the allegations in an underlying civil suit. … The defendant’s motion should be granted when the defendant “put[s] forth in good faith . . . some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping for straws” … . Here, defendant alleged that the officer inflicted pain on him by twisting his wrist when he was already subdued, and the defense learned of two lawsuits in which the officer was alleged to have engaged in similar conduct. People v Fishbein, 2025 NY Slip Op 02996, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for (1) the procedure for correcting an erroneous jury instruction, (2) the criteria for allowing the cross-examination of a police officer about a civil suit in which it is alleged the officer shot the plaintiff, and (3) the criteria for granting a motion to conduct an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record.

 

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