You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

STOP AND ARREST OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO NYC’S STOP AND FRISK POLICY STATED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the allegations describing the stop and arrest of the plaintiff pursuant to NYC’s stop and frisk policy stated causes of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against the individual officers and the city:

The complaint, as amplified by plaintiff’s opposition papers, alleges that, on February 13, 2013, plaintiff and a friend, both black men, were driving in a luxury sports car in the Bronx. They were not driving recklessly or violating any traffic laws. Nevertheless, they were pulled over by the police, and five or six officers, including the individual defendants, removed them from the car and searched them and the car. The police found marijuana in the friend’s pocket, but recovered no other contraband, either in the car or on plaintiff’s person. Nevertheless, plaintiff was arrested and held for two days. Charges against him were dismissed in October 2013.

The complaint alleges further that, during this time period, the New York City Police Department employed a “stop and frisk” policy, pursuant to which every year the police stopped hundreds of thousands of overwhelmingly and disproportionately minority persons, including black men, and subjected them to searches, for no reason other than that they were in supposedly high-crime areas. The complaint alleges that the “stop and frisk” policy, rather than some constitutionally cognizable cause, was the reason plaintiff was detained, searched, and arrested. To prove the existence of this policy, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the New York City Bar Association’s 24-page “Report on the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy,” dated May 2013, which examined the policy and made recommendations for its reform and the protection of city residents’ civil liberties.

The foregoing states a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 against the individual defendants … . At this procedural juncture, it is not necessary for plaintiff to allege that any of the individual defendants did any more than participate in his unlawful arrest.

By alleging the existence of an extraconstitutional municipal “stop and frisk” policy, and that the individual defendants unlawfully arrested plaintiff pursuant to that policy, the complaint states a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 against the City … . Smith v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01828, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEATBELTS IN A TAXICAB VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND IS NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the failure to provide seatbelts in  taxicab violates the Vehicle and Traffic Law and constitutes negligence:

The failure to provide seatbelts in a taxicab is a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383, and constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . Where an injured party fails to wear an available seatbelt, such failure would go to damages, not liability … . That is not the case when the vehicle owner fails to provide seatbelts in the first instance … . Grant v AAIJ African Mkt. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01823, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

HANDCUFFING THE DEFENDANT PENDING IDENTIFICATION BY THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER AMOUNTED AN ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined handcuffing the defendant pending identification by the undercover officer amounted to an arrest without probable cause. Defendant’s motion to suppress the identification and the buy money should have been granted:

The hearing court expressly determined that the police detention of defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion, but that probable cause did not exist until the undercover officer who allegedly bought drugs from defendant made an identification. Because the record provides no reason for the officers to have concluded that defendant, a suspect in a street drug sale, was armed or dangerous, or likely to resist arrest or flee, handcuffing him was inconsistent with an investigatory detention and elevated the intrusion to an arrest not based on probable cause … . Accordingly, the undercover officer’s identification of defendant and the buy money recovered as a result of the unlawful arrest should have been suppressed, and defendant is entitled to a new trial preceded by an independent source hearing … . People v Perez, 2019 NY Slip Op 01822, First Dept 3-14-18

 

, ,

SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the Supremacy Clause did not preclude a New York State civil suit for defamation against President Trump. In response to allegations by the plaintiff that Donald Trump had made unwanted sexual advances, then candidate Trump made statements denying the allegations (made by plaintiff and other women), calling them false and outright lies saying, for example, “all of these liars will be sued after the election is over:”

… [T]he current sitting President attempts to shield himself from consequences for his alleged unofficial misconduct by relying upon the constitutional protection of the Presidency. We reject defendant President Trump’s argument that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents a New York State court – and every other state court in the country – from exercising its authority under its state constitution. Instead, we find that the Supremacy Clause was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state’s constitution.

… [T]he Supremacy Clause provides that federal law supersedes state law with which it conflicts, but it does not provide that the President himself is immune from state law that does not conflict with federal law. Since there is no federal law conflicting with or displacing this defamation action, the Supremacy Clause does not provide a basis for immunizing the President from state court civil damages actions. Moreover, in the absence of a federal law limiting state court jurisdiction, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, it follows that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant and properly denied his motion to dismiss. Zervos v Trump, 2019 NY Slip Op 01851, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

NYC CHARTER DID NOT GIVE THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE AUTHORITY FOR A SUMMARY INQUIRY INTO THE ADEQUACY OF SOFTWARE USED TO TRACK STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over a full-fledged, two-justice, dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the NYC Charter did give the Public Advocate the power to conduct a summary inquiry into the adequacy of computer software designed to keep track of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEP’s) and to seek appropriate funding from Medicaid:

We agree with [Matter of Green v Giuliani (187 Misc 2d at 138)] that [NYC Charter] section 1109’s reach includes not only corruption, but “all forms of official misconduct.”… Arguably, in light of Green, section 1109’s reach continues to evolve over time to include areas not limited to corruption. The question that remains is whether the section 1109 phrase “any alleged violation or neglect of duty” should be broadened so as to bring within its reach all forms of conduct, including acts that amount to administrative inefficiency, deficiency, or mismanagement. We believe it should not, mindful of the admonition uttered over a century ago: “It would be intolerable if . . . all the heads of departments of the city could be haled into court and cross-examined by disaffected taxpayers, or even by some other hostile official, with no result except publicity. It is much better that proceedings of this kind should be confined to the legitimate purposes of the law” … .

Section 1109 is set forth in Chapter 49 of the Charter, entitled “Officers and Employees.” Neither that chapter, nor the Charter itself, defines “violation” or “neglect of duty.” In the absence of a clear definition, either by statute or case law, we are guided by dictionary definitions because they are “useful guideposts” in determining the meaning of a statutory word or phrase … . * * *

… .[W]e find no legal basis to expand section 1109’s reach beyond allegations that clearly fall within the plain meaning of a “violation” or a “neglect of duty…”… . … [P]etitioner’s allegations of administrative mismanagement, namely, the inefficient governmental administration of a computer software … are not sufficient bases to support the instant section 1109 judicial summary inquiry application.  Matter of James v Fariña, 2019 NY Slip Op 01729, First Dept 3-12-19

 

PLAINTIFF IN THIS DERIVATIVE STOCKHOLDER ACTION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT A DEMAND FOR RELIEF ON THE BOARD COULD BE EXCUSED, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the complaint in this shareholder derivative action was properly dismissed for failure to first make a demand for relief on the board. The Rales criteria were not met:

Under Rales, “a court must determine whether . . . the particularized factual allegations of a derivative stockholder complaint create a reasonable doubt that, as of the time the complaint is filed, the board of directors could have properly exercised its independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand” … . The ” mere threat of personal liability . . . is insufficient to challenge either the independence or disinterestedness of directors'” … . However, “a substantial likelihood” of liability “disables [a director] from impartially considering a response to a demand by” a stockholder … .

“Where, as here, directors are exculpated from liability except for claims based on fraudulent, illegal or bad faith conduct, a plaintiff must . . . plead particularized facts that demonstrate that the directors acted with scienter, i.e., that they had actual or constructive knowledge that their conduct was legally improper” … .

Even though the complaint alleges that BMS’ audit committee and senior management knew about gaps in the company’s internal controls, it fails to establish bad faith or scienter … .

Plaintiff’s contention that defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability because they signed 10-K’s that contained false statements is also unavailing. It is true that “when directors communicate publicly . . . about corporate matters[,] the sine qua non of directors’ fiduciary duty to shareholders is honesty” … . However, “to establish liability for misstatements when the board is not seeking shareholder action, shareholder plaintiffs must show that the misstatement was made knowingly or in bad faith” … . Deckter v Andreotti, 2019 NY Slip Op 01717, First Dept 3-12-19

 

MERELY QUESTIONING THE CREDIBILITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant did not submit evidence refuting plaintiff’s explanation of the cause of her fall (a hole in the stairs). Merely questioning the credibility of the plaintiff did not raise a question of fact:

Plaintiff was injured when, while walking down a staircase in defendant’s building, her foot struck a hole in the stairs, causing her to fall from the third floor to the second floor. Defendant failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence refuting plaintiff’s testimony identifying the cause of her fall … . Defendant’s challenge to the credibility of plaintiff’s evidence is a matter for resolution by a trier of fact … . Morales v 320 E. 176th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01711, First Dept 3-12-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GROSS NEGLIGENCE MIGHT OVERCOME A CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION ON LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether gross negligence might overcome a contractual limitation on liability. Here a bid on a highway project turned out to be more than $80 million short, which resulted in the withdrawal of the bid. The project was for a toll road, the toll to be paid to the builder of the road. The bid was low because the date of the beginning of construction, rather than the end of construction, was used to calculate the income from the toll. Gross negligence factors included, the firing of key personnel overseeing the creation of the bid, failure to follow company policy in reviewing the bid, and departure from industry standards:

It is well-settled that contractual limitations on liability are generally enforceable … . However, “public policy forbids a party from attempting to avoid liability for damages caused by grossly negligent conduct” … . Thus, a gross negligence claim will be sustained where a party’s conduct “evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” … . S.A. De Obras y Servicios, COPASA v Bank of Nova Scotia, 2019 NY Slip Op 01706, First Dept 5-12-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN APPROACHED BY POLICE IN PLAINCLOTHES AND DRIVING AN UNMARKED CAR DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WEAPON DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over two separate full-fledged dissenting opinions, determined that the police did not have justification for pursuing defendant when he ran as the police (in plainclothes driving an unmarked car) approached. The police had a report of a shooting by a black man wearing a black jacket. Defendant was wearing a gray jacket and was walking out of an apartment complex with a black man wearing a black jacket. Defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon he discarded during the chase should have been granted:

“Flight alone, even if accompanied by equivocal circumstances that would justify a police request for information, does not establish reasonable suspicion of criminality and is insufficient to justify pursuit, although it may give rise to reasonable suspicion if combined with other specific circumstances indicating the suspect’s possible engagement in criminal activity” … . “Police pursuit of an individual ‘significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . …

… [T]he radio report simply indicated a sole perpetrator with a vague description — black man in a black jacket. There was nothing at all about defendant that matched any aspect of the suspect in the radio report, except that he was black. Nor was defendant wearing a black jacket. He was wearing a gray jacket and was with a second individual, several minutes after the radio report of shots fired. The men did not appear to be fleeing the scene, but rather, were exiting an apartment complex. Thus, unlike the cases relied on by the People, defendant did not match any description, general or otherwise … . Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that defendant knew Pengel and his colleagues were police officers… .

That defendant was with someone who matched an extremely vague, generic description of the suspect, which contained no information about the suspect’s height or weight, was not sufficiently indicative of criminal activity on defendant’s part … . People v Bilal, 2019 NY Slip Op 01673, First Dept 3-7-19

 

​

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