You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence should not have been granted in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff and defendant had entered a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) in which plaintiff agreed to purchase defendant, Symbio, for between $100 and $110 million. The opinion is fact specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Plaintiff’s claims are not definitively contradicted by the documentary evidence. The record (to the extent there is one on this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211) demonstrates the existence of issues of fact concerning when plaintiff determined that there was a matter that might give rise to a right of indemnification so that it was required to give notice pursuant to section 8.03(a) of the parties’ contract. …

Further, defendants’ defense of a condition precedent is not conclusively established. Even if section 8.03(a) might be construed as a condition precedent (which is highly doubtful), there has been no showing regarding the materiality of the provision as would be necessary given that nonoccurrence of the condition would lead to a draconian forfeiture.  XI Lux Holdco S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02437, First Dept 3-28-19

 

, ,

ACTION BASED UPON FAILURE TO SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A HOSPITAL REST ROOM SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action, which alleged inadequate supervision when plaintiff used a hospital rest room, sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the action was time-barred:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to properly assess her condition and the degree of her supervisory needs in the restroom, a claim sounding in medical malpractice, and her action, brought three years after her injuries, is therefore untimely … . Because the loss of consortium claim is derivative of the injured plaintiff’s claim, that cause of action must also be dismissed as untimely … . Kim v New York Presbyt., 2019 NY Slip Op 02425, First Dept 3-28-19

 

,

RELEVANT REGULATION, RATHER THAN THE POLICY LANGUAGE, CONTROLLED THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST ON INSURANCE POLICY PROCEEDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relevant regulation, as opposed to the less generous insurance policy provision, controlled the payment of interest on policy proceeds:

Defendant[‘s] … insurer’s bare offer to pay the policy limit was not a “tender” of the policy for the purposes of stopping the accrual of prejudgment interest under 11 NYCRR 60-1.1(b). While the policy provides that the insurer will pay interest on a judgment until “we have paid, offered to pay or deposited in court the part of the judgment that is within our Limit of Insurance,” 11 NYCRR 60-1.1(b) requires the insurer to pay postjudgment interest until it has “paid or tendered or deposited in court” the part of the judgment that does not exceed the policy limit. As the policy language is less generous to the insured than the regulation, it is deemed superseded by the regulation … . Within that framework, a bare offer to pay does not constitute a tender. Thus, interest must be calculated from the date of entry of the order that granted summary judgment to plaintiff until the date of payment … . Gyabaah v Rivlab Transp. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02417, First Dept 3-28-19

 

,

NO PROOF NOTE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence of standing was insufficient and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The majority held there was no proof the plaintiff was in possession of the note when the action was brought:

On or about September 17, 2014, plaintiff executed a power of attorney appointing Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) as its attorney-in-fact with power to enforce its rights with regard to loans included in the PSA [pooling and service agreement].

Two years after that, on October 19, 2016, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit by Kyle Lucas, an employee of a company whose indirect subsidiary is Ocwen. Lucas alleged that plaintiff had had physical possession of the note since June 6, 2007, but he failed to identify any document which provided the basis for his knowledge. A copy of defendant’s note, endorsed in blank … , was attached to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. However, there is nothing in the record that proves when the note was physically delivered to plaintiff. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Guevara, 2019 NY Slip Op 02412, First Dept 3-28-19

 

,

LAY WITNESSES PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO AS THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined two lay witnesses were properly allowed to give their opinion that the person depicted in a video was the defendant:

The court providently exercised its discretion in permitting two witnesses to give lay opinion testimony that defendant was the person depicted in photos from surveillance videotapes from areas in and around the building where the robbery occurred and at the shelter where defendant resided both several months prior to the robbery and at the time of the robbery. This testimony “served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [videos] was indeed the defendant” … , because there was “some basis for concluding that the witness[es] [were] more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the [videos] than [was] the jury” … .

The People established that defendant’s appearance had changed since the crime in several significant respects. Furthermore, the witnesses, who were sufficiently familiar with defendant, were able to recognize defendant’s mannerisms and peculiar way of walking. In addition, the record establishes the poor quality of the photographic evidence. People v Rivera, 2019 NY Slip Op 02262 [170 AD3d 566], First Dept 3-26-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH MURDER IN 2002 AND ACQUITTED IN 2006, CHALLENGES TO THE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AND THE PROPRIETY OF THE PROSECUTION DEEMED SPECULATIVE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. Plaintiff was arrested and charged with murder in 2002 and was acquitted in 2006:

Certain facts pertinent to the shooting are undisputed. For the subsequent civil action, plaintiff’s strategy has focused on disputing the identification of him as the shooter. The record, including numerous police reports and statements by witnesses, reflects that the shooting outside of a well attended social event caused significant confusion as witnesses were alerted from various vantage points while many attendees remained inside. Some participants in a physical confrontation preceding the shooting apparently had not been invited and likely were unknown by attendees. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s various attempts to dispute his identification as well as disparage the credibility of police and identification witnesses do not withstand a close analysis with respect to establishing the requisite elements of the civil claims. When the speculative challenges to probable cause and the propriety of the prosecution are cleared away, we are left with a record of the criminal investigation and prosecution that is factually compelling, warranting dismissal of the civil claims relevant to this appeal. Roberts v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02177, First Dept 3-21-19

 

,

DAMAGES AWARDED 69-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the damages awarded the 69-year-old plaintiff for past and future pain and suffering were too high:

Judgment … upon a jury verdict, which … awarded plaintiff $1.2 million for past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering over 10 years, $255,582 for future medical expenses, and $250,000 for future loss of earnings … unanimously modified … to remand the matter for a new trial on damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering, unless plaintiff stipulates … to reduce the awards for past pain and suffering to $1,000,000 and for future pain and suffering to $675,000 … . Dacaj v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02171, First Dept 3-21-19

 

,

CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).

Although the error was deemed harmless, the First Department determined the cross-racial identification jury instruction should have been given:

The trial court denied defendant’s request for a charge on cross-racial identification. Since then, the Court of Appeals decided People v Boone, which held that “when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification” and the trial court must give the charge if a party requests it (30 NY3d 521, 526 [2017]). Since identification was an issue in this case and the victim and defendant were of different races, the motion court should have granted the request for the charge on cross-racial identification. However, we find the error harmless given that the video supports the victim’s testimony about the incident and his familiarity with defendant. Further, the victim told police that the robber had an MTA connection, and defendant was arrested wearing an MTA jacket. The identification testimony was unusually strong and the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming … . Also, there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for this charge error … . People v Patterson, 2019 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 3-21-19

 

, , , , ,

NOTES TAKEN BY AN OBSERVER HIRED BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO WITNESS AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS’ DOCTOR ARE PRIVILEGED AS MATERIAL PREPARED FOR TRIAL, THE OBSERVER WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, in a matter of first impression, determined that the notes taken by an observer at an independent medical exam (IME) of plaintiff by defendants’ doctor are protected by the privilege afforded materials prepared for litigation. The observer was hired by plaintiff’s attorney and was deemed to be acting as an agent of the attorney:

The IME observer, however, is an agent of the plaintiff’s attorney. Consequently, the requested notes and materials constitute materials prepared for trial, bringing them within the conditional or qualified privilege protections of CPLR 3101(d)(2). Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation and preparation for trial may be obtained only upon a showing that the requesting party has a “substantial need” for them in the preparation of the case and that without “undue hardship” the requesting party is unable to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means (CPLR 3101[d][2] …).

The IME observer was hired to assist plaintiff’s attorney in advancing the litigation and preparing for trial … . Although present, she was not involved in the doctor’s examination of the plaintiff. Her function was to serve as the attorney’s “eyes and ears,” observing what occurred during the IME, and then reporting that information back to plaintiff’s attorney.

Defendants have not shown, in response, any “substantial need” for the IME observer’s notes, etc., or why they are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the “substantial equivalent” of the materials by other means … . Key to this analysis is that the defendants’ doctor conducted plaintiff’s examination and can provide defendants with any information concerning what generally occurred and what he did at the IME. Markel v Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02049, First Dept 3-19-19

 

, ,

MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT DEFENDANT LACKED STANDING, OTHER GROUNDS FOR SUPPRESSION NOT RAISED BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST HIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon he dropped should not have been denied on the ground defendant lacked standing and defense counsel should not have been precluded from cross-examining a police officer about allegations made in a federal civil suit against him.  The First Department noted it could not consider alternative grounds for suppression not raised below:

Two officers testified at the hearing to the effect that the pistol was recovered immediately after it fell from defendant’s person. Since this Court lacks jurisdiction to affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the pistol on the alternative ground that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him, a ground upon which the hearing court did not rule, we “reverse the denial of suppression and remit the case to Supreme Court for further proceedings”… .

Defendant is also entitled to a new trial, because the trial court improperly precluded his counsel from cross-examining the only police officer who allegedly saw the pistol falling from his person about allegations raised in a federal civil action against the officer, which had settled. Counsel had a good faith basis for seeking to impeach the officer’s credibility by asking him about allegations that he and other officers approached and assaulted the plaintiff in that case without any basis for suspecting him of posing a danger and filed baseless criminal charges against him … . Although trial courts “retain broad discretion” over the admission of prior bad acts allegedly committed by a police witness or other witness … , the court improvidently exercised its discretion by entirely precluding any cross-examination about the allegations at issue here without any valid … . People v Holmes, 2019 NY Slip Op 02033, First Dept 3-19-19

 

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