You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION ON THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case should have been granted. Defendants demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of a wet condition:

Defendants … relied on plaintiff’s testimony that, in the 15 minutes before his accident, he had gone up and down the stairs without incident and did not notice any liquid or water on the steps, demonstrating that the alleged dangerous condition was not visible and apparent for a sufficient time before the accident to provide constructive notice … . Although plaintiff did testify that he saw a woman with a mop coming down the stairs as he was going upstairs the first time, implying that she could have caused the wet condition, he acknowledged that the surveillance video did not show any woman with a mop. Furthermore, defendants’ witnesses stated that the daytime worker for defendant United Building Maintenance Associates, Inc. was only responsible for cleaning the area near the ATM machines on the first floor and never mopped, and that the staircase was cleaned by night personnel. Fernandez v JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 2019 NY Slip Op 01645, First Dept 5-7-19

 

,

ARCHITECT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, THE FACT THAT ANOTHER PARTY PLACED THE ANGLE IRON WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF IN AN EFFORT TO FIX AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE DESIGN OF THE SUBJECT BOILER SYSTEM DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant architect’s (Cannon’s) motion for summary judgment in this personal injury case was properly denied. Plaintiff was injured when an angle iron used to support part of a boiler system struck him on the head. Cannon argued it did not have any responsibility for the use of the angle iron as a support, which was placed there by a third party. However Cannon approved the boiler system and therefore may have been responsible for the defect which resulted in the need for the angle-iron support. Therefore the placement of the angle iron may not have been a superseding cause of the injury:

… [A]ccording to Cannon, even if it was negligent in its review of the component list or in its inspections of the ongoing work, any such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, because the installation of angle irons, which it never approved, and the failure of DASNY [building owner] and Martin [HVAC contractor} to heed its remediation recommendation for eight months before the accident occurred were intervening superseding causes.

“When a question of proximate cause involves an intervening act, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence'” … . “The mere fact that other persons share some responsibility for plaintiff’s harm does not absolve defendant from liability because there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury'” … . Here, a jury could reasonably conclude that the effort to reinforce the cleanout port covers with angle irons was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the alleged inadequacy of the covers, which Cannon either approved or failed to detect, and which Cannon’s principal acknowledged were not the proper covers. Thus, under the circumstances presented in this case, there remain triable issues of fact as to whether, inter alia, the use of the angle iron bracing, as well as DASNY and Martin’s failure to replace the covers, despite notice from Cannon, constituted superseding causes of plaintiff’s injuries  … . Demetro v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 01642, First Dept 3-7-19

 

, ,

TENANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INSURE THE PROPERTY AND ALLEGED IMPROPER ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE ARE NOT DEFAULTS THAT CAN BE CURED, THEREFORE THE TENANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant was not entitled to a Yellowstone injunction because the alleged failure to insure the property and the alleged improper assignment of the lease were not curable defaults:

The purpose of a Yellowstone injunction, which tolls the period in which a tenant may cure a claimed violation of the lease, is for a tenant to avoid forfeiture after a determination against it has been made on the merits, because the tenant will still have an opportunity to cure … .

A necessary lynchpin of a Yellowstone injunction is that the claimed default is capable of cure. Where the claimed default is not capable of cure, there is no basis for a Yellowstone injunction… . Here, the claimed defaults are the tenant’s failure to procure insurance and improper assignment of the lease. The tenant provides various steps that it will take to cure if it is ultimately found to be in material violation of the insurance provisions of the lease. None of these proposed cures involve any retroactive change in coverage, which means that the alleged defaults raised by the landlord are not susceptible to cure … .  * * *

We reject the tenant’s argument, that even if no Yellowstone injunction is warranted, it is still entitled to a preliminary injunction. Yellowstone injunctions are available on a far lesser showing than preliminary injunctions … . Because the Yellowstone injunction fails, the preliminary injunction does as well. In any event, no injunction is needed to preserve the status quo because the landlord cannot evict the tenant unless and until there is a determination of the merits in the landlord’s favor. If the tenant prevails, then there will be no eviction. The right lost by the denial of a Yellowstone injunction is the right to cure any default. Bliss World LLC v 10 W. 57th St. Realty LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01509, First Dept 3-5-19

 

THAT THE LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE DID NOT MATTER, THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LADDER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY SECURED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. The ladder was deemed an inadequate safety device because plaintiff had to step off the ladder onto display cases to do his work. The fact that the ladder was not defective was not dispositive because the ladder was not secured:

Plaintiff, who fell from a ladder while installing light fixtures in [the] building, was forced to install a portion of the light by standing on display cases approximately 20 feet high, and then returning to the top of the ladder to finish that portion of the installation, which was located partially over the cases. While attempting to maneuver himself into position on the ladder, he lost his balance and fell. Whether the ladder shook prior to his fall or during that period in time when he was attempting to recover his balance is of no moment, since the ladder was an inadequate safety device for the work being performed … . The claim … that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident is unpersuasive, since plaintiff’s stance was necessary to perform the work … . It also does not avail defendants that the ladder was not defective, since it is undisputed that the ladder was unsecured, and the worker who had been holding the ladder walked away only minutes before the accident … . Nieto v CLDN NY LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01537, First Dept 3-5-19

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY PLED THE COURT WILL SEARCH THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HERE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE THERE WAS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that, even where a cause of action is not properly pled, on a motion for summary judgment it must search the record to determine whether there is an actionable claim. In this slip and fall case, the building owner was defendant 90 Merrick and the employer of the janitor who allegedly mopped the floor where plaintiff fell was defendant ABM. The First Department held that the 90 Merrick’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

The complaint’s allegations that defendants were negligent in their ownership, operation, control and maintenance of the premises by causing or allowing a dangerous condition on the floor gave no indication that plaintiff’s theories of liability would include 90 Merrick’s negligent retention of ABM or its vicarious liability for ABM’s independent contractor’s negligence in performing its duties under the contract … . Notwithstanding, a motion for summary judgment must be denied if there are issues of fact as to an actionable claim, even if the claim was not properly pleaded … , and we find that there are no factual issues as to whether ABM was an independent contractor — it was — when the accident happened. The deposition testimony elicited from nonparty CLK Commercial Management, LLC’s employee, John S. Burke, the property manager for the building at the time of the accident, and ABM’s manager, Victor Orellana, whose duties at the time of the accident included making sure the building was kept clean, shows that 90 Merrick did not direct, supervise or control ABM’s work and that an ABM employee had responsibility for supervising and inspecting the work performed by ABM’s employees, which comports with the duties and obligations as set forth in defendants’ contract … . Burgdoerfer v CLK/HP 90 Merrick LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01532, First Dept 3-5-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF MELTED ICE CREAM ON THE STAIRS, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE CREAM HAD BEEN THERE FOR AT LEAST THREE HOURS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of melted ice cream which had spilled onto interior stairs in this slip and fall case. There was evidence the ice cream was on the step for at least three hours:

Although defendants’ superintendent testified that he complied with his regular maintenance routine on the day of the accident and never observed the cup of ice cream on the stairs, plaintiff testified that she observed the cup of ice cream in an upright position approximately three hours before her fall when she had returned home from work. Such conflicting testimony, along with a photograph showing a tipped over cup of melted ice cream taken moments after plaintiff’s fall, creates a triable issue as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the condition … . Cruz v Perspolis Realty LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01531, First Dept 3-5-19

 

,

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE RAPE KIT AND BLOOD AND SALIVA EVIDENCE RELATED TO A 1988 PROSECUTION HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE VERDICT, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING AND MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for DNA testing and his motion to vacate his conviction were properly denied. Defendant had been convicted of sodomy in 1988. After a successful habeas corpus petition, a second trial was held and defendant was again convicted. After the habeas corpus petition had been filed, but before it was docketed, the NYPD destroyed the rape kit and blood and saliva samples. No DNA testing had been done on the evidence:

Any defendant, regardless of the date of conviction, may move for DNA testing on specified evidence. The court shall grant the application if it determines that had a DNA test been conducted on the evidence and had the results of that evidence been admitted at trial, “there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.30[1-a][a][1]). Defendant bears the burden of making the “reasonable probability” showing … . Where the People assert that the evidence to be tested has been destroyed or cannot be located, the statute provides that the people must make “a representation to that effect” and submit “information and documentary evidence in the possession of the people concerning the last known physical location of such specified evidence” (CPL 440.30[1-b][b]). It is the People’s burden to show that the evidence could no longer be located and was thus no longer available for testing … .

We find that the People met their burden. …

… .[W]e find that defendant has not carried his burden of establishing that, even had he been able to secure the original evidence and perform DNA testing on it, there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different … . People v Dorsey, 2019 NY Slip Op 01526, First Dept 3-5-19

 

PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiff was not engaged in work covered by Labor Law 240 (1) when he fell from a ladder:

Although plaintiff injured his elbow when the ladder he was using in defendant’s building fell over, he is not entitled to relief under Labor Law § 240(1) since he was not engaged in construction-related activity at the time of his accident … . Plaintiff’s actions of opening a splice box affixed to the wall and splicing telephone wires therein while on a service call for a customer of his employer did not constitute an alteration of the building, but rather routine maintenance … . Spencer v 322 Partners, L.L.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-5-19

 

,

THE EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IN THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION WHICH CRIMINALIZES POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION IS AN EXCEPTION THAT MUST BE AFFIRMATIVELY PLED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of unlawful possession of ammunition pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 10-131(i)(3), determined that the exclusionary language in the code provision is an exception which must be affirmatively pled in the accusatory instrument:

We find that the relevant language in section 10-131(i)(3), which makes it a crime to possess pistol or revolver ammunition unless authorized to possess a pistol or revolver, constitutes an exception and not a proviso. Consequently, it was the People’s burden to prove that the defendant was not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver within the City of New York. As the People failed to do so, defendant’s conviction under section 10-131(i)(3) must be vacated and that count dismissed.

In order to determine whether a statute defining a crime contains “an exception that must be affirmatively pleaded as an element in the accusatory instrument” or “a proviso that need not be pleaded but may be raised by the accused as a bar to prosecution or a defense at trial,” one must look to the language of the statute itself … . Indeed, “[i]f the defining statute contains an exception, the indictment must allege that the crime is not within the exception. But when the exception is found outside the statute,” it is termed a proviso and “generally is a matter for the defendant to raise in defense” … . “Legislative intent to create an exception [whose existence must be negated by the prosecution] has generally been found when the language of exclusion is contained entirely within” the statute itself … . In contrast, where the language of the exclusion depends on a source outside the statute, courts will infer that the language functions as a proviso … . People v Tatis, 2019 NY Slip Op 01507, First Dept 2-28-19

 

,

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner alleged he was injured by the malfunction of weightlifting equipment at a city recreation center:

Assuming that the law firm’s clerical error was not a reasonable excuse, ” [t]he absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application,'” where the municipal respondent had actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim and was not prejudiced by the delay … . Here, petitioner’s affidavit stating that he signed an incident report prepared by respondent’s employee shortly after the accident, and that the weightlifting equipment was repaired a few months later, demonstrate prima facie that respondent received actual notice of the pertinent facts underlying his claim, if not the negligence claim itself, which supports a “plausible argument” that the City will not be substantially prejudiced in investigating and defending the claim … . Matter of Mercedes v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01487, First Dept 2-28-19

 

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