You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

POLICE BODY-WORN-CAMERA FOOTAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERSONNEL RECORD AND IS NOT THEREFORE PROTECTED FROM RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-a (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined police officers’ body-worn-camera footage did not constitute a personnel record within the meaning of Civil Rights Law 50-a. Therefore the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y.’s petition for a preliminary injunction prohibiting release of the footage was properly denied:

We find that given its nature and use, the body-worn-camera footage at issue is not a personnel record covered by the confidentiality and disclosure requirements of § 50-a … . The purpose of body-worn-camera footage is for use in the service of other key objectives of the program, such as transparency, accountability, and public trust-building.

Although the body-worn-camera program was designed, in part, for performance evaluation purposes, and supervisors are required, at times, to review such footage for the purpose of evaluating performance, the footage being released here is not primarily generated for, nor used in connection with, any pending disciplinary charges or promotional processes. New York Civil Liberties Union v New York City Police Department (__NY3d__, 2018 NY Slip Op 8423 [2018]), which involved disciplinary matters, does not constrain this analysis. The footage, here, rather, is more akin to arrest or stop reports, and not records primarily generated for disciplinary and promotional purposes. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the body-worn-camera program to promote increased transparency and public accountability. Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y. v De Blasio, 2019 NY Slip Op 03265, First Dept, 4-30-19

 

, ,

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINTS IN THESE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS OF A CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED AT THE MOTION-TO-DISMISS STAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a partial dissent, determined plaintiff’s (the Trustee’s) motion to amend its complaints in these residential mortgage backed securities actions should have been granted. The amendment sought to allege defendant breached the underlying contract by failing to notify the trustee of loan breaches. The majority found that the contract provision requiring notice was ambiguous. The dissent argued the contract was not ambiguous and did not require notification:

It is well settled that “[a] request for leave to amend a complaint should be freely given, and denied only if there is prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay, or if the proposed amendment is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” … . “A party opposing leave to amend must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment]” … .

Judged by these standards, the motion court should have granted the Trustee’s motions for leave to file the amended complaints with respect to the express breach of contract claims based on DBSP’s (defendant’s) failure to notify the Trustee of the loan breaches … . It cannot be said, at this early stage of the proceedings, that these claims are “palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” … . Nor has DBSP asserted, let alone shown, that it would suffer any prejudice or surprise directly resulting from the delay. * * *

… [B]because the disputed provision is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, “it cannot be construed as a matter of law, and dismissal . . . is not appropriate” … . LDIR, LLC v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03154, First Dept 4-25-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE HE MISCALCULATED AND FILED A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION TEN DAYS BEFORE THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK RAN OUT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defense counsel was ineffective when he filed a speedy trial motion 10 days before the speedy trial clock would have run out. The indictment was dismissed in this CPL 440.10 proceeding:

Counsel filed a speedy trial motion, alleging well over the required threshold of 183 days of chargeable time. However, because of counsel’s miscalculations, these allegations included substantial periods that were not in fact chargeable. As a result, the court deciding the speedy trial motion found that only 174 days were chargeable. However, if counsel had waited only 10 more days to file the motion, the circumstances of the case establish that this additional period would unquestionably have been charged to the People, as counsel was aware. Thus, the threshold would have been exceeded, and the court would have been required to grant the speedy trial motion. Instead, the filing of the premature motion stopped the clock and rendered the People’s additional unreadiness excludable.

The CPL 440.10 hearing record establishes that counsel had no strategic reason for filing the speedy trial motion in the form and at the time he did, and that his handling of the motion was objectively unreasonable. Furthermore, the prejudice prong of a single-error ineffectiveness claim was satisfied, because “[i]t is well settled that a failure of counsel to assert a meritorious speedy trial claim is, by itself, a sufficiently egregious error to render a defendant’s representation ineffective” … . People v Stewart, 2019 NY Slip Op 03142, First Dept 4-25-19

 

, , ,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD BUT THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTUAL FRAUD WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an action alleging members of defendant liability company fraudulently transferred funds from the LLC to the defendant members to render the LLC insolvent. The First Department determined the constructive fraud cause of action was sufficiently pled but  the allegations did not support an actual fraud cause of action:

… [T]he complaint implicitly alleges that a necessary element of fair consideration, i.e., good faith, was lacking when the transfers were made. …

However, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for actual fraud under Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 276 and 276-a. … [U]nlike the allegations supporting the constructive fraud claim, the allegations supporting the actual fraud claim are subject to the heightened pleading standard of CPLR 3016(b), and the allegations about fair consideration do not meet that standard, because they were made upon information and belief, and the source of the information was not disclosed … .

Nor does the complaint allege any other badges of fraud. Brennan v 3250 Rawlins Ave. Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03002, First Dept 4-23-19

 

,

NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS WHICH ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTITUTE SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR ACCIDENTS AT OTHER SUBWAY STATIONS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SUBWAY-PLATFORM GAP SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the plaintiff’s verdict in this subway “gap” slip and fall accident case. Plaintiff’s leg slipped through the gap between the subway car and the platform. The fact that the defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) was in compliance with its own six-inch-gap rule was not conclusive on liability. Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that non-mandatory gap standards promulgated by the American Public Transit Association and the Public Transportation Safety Board were generally accepted was admissible. Evidence of similar gap accidents at other stations was also admissible:

… [P]laintiff’s expert’s testimony regarding gap standards promulgated by the American Public Transit Association (APTA) and the Public Transportation Safety Board (PTSB) did not misleadingly establish industry standards that were non-mandatory guidelines. While mere non-mandatory guidelines and recommendations are insufficient to establish a standard of care, an expert’s testimony regarding “generally accepted” standards, which are promulgated by an association such as APTA and the PTSB, and generally accepted in the relevant community at the relevant time, constitutes some evidence of negligence and may establish a standard of care … . Moreover, the expert noted in his testimony that the standards were voluntary and did not suit all transit systems. His testimony merely served to help the jury determine whether NYCTA’s own policy of a six-inch gap was reasonable, in light of the evidence … .

The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of gap accidents at other stations or precluding NYCTA’s witnesses from testifying. Plaintiff demonstrated that the relevant conditions of the subject accident and the previous ones were substantially the same, though they occurred at other stations … , and the probative value of the gap accident statistics outweighed any prejudice to NYCTA … . Daniels v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 03000, First Dept 4-23-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO A WARRANT APPLICATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF DNA EVIDENCE, YOUTUBE VIDEO NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that defendant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to a warrant application for the collection of DNA evidence. Defendant was incarcerated and represented on another matter at the time of the warrant application. The First Department also noted that a Youtube video admitted into evidence was not properly authenticated:

In general, search warrant applications are made ex parte … . However, as explained in Matter of Abe A. (56 NY2d 288 [1982]), special rules apply to evidence to be taken from a suspect’s body, such as blood or DNA samples.

The hearing court excluded defense counsel based on its understanding that the discussion of notice in Abe A. applied only to the first “discrete level” of Fourth Amendment analysis identified in that case, involving “the seizure of the person necessary to bring him into contact with government agents,” and not the second level, involving “the subsequent search and seizure for the evidence” (id. at 295 [internal quotation marks omitted]). …

Nothing in the Court’s opinion suggests a basis for applying the “elementary tenet of due process” described by the [Abe A.] Court only to the first part of an application for an order to physically detain a person and then make a corporeal search. … Accordingly, defendant is entitled to suppression of the DNA evidence obtained as a result of the warrant issued by the hearing court, and a new trial … .

… [A]t trial the People failed to adequately authenticate an incriminating YouTube video under the standards set forth in People v Price (29 NY3d 472 [2017]), which was decided after defendant’s trial. The authentication testimony was essentially limited to testimony that the video shown in court was the same as the one posted on YouTube and another website, and that defendant appears in the video. Accordingly, there was no authentication under any of the methods discussed in Price. People v Goldman, 2019 NY Slip Op 02976, First Dept 4-23-19

 

FAILURE TO TELL THE JURY TO STOP DELIBERATING IF THEY FIND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES REQUIRED REVERSAL, EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGE TOLD THE JURY TO ACQUIT ON ALL COUNTS IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the judge’s jury instruction did not make it clear that finding the defendant not guilty of assault first based upon the justification defense required that the jury stop deliberating. The judge had told the jury they must find the defendant not guilty “on all counts” if the justification defense applies:

… [R]eversal is warranted despite the lack of preservation, because, contrary to our dissenting colleague’s contention, the court’s charge, as a whole, failed to properly instruct the jury that if it found defendant not guilty of first-degree assault based on a finding of justification, the jury must not consider the lesser second-degree assault counts arising from defendant’s use of force. The dissent posits that the instruction here is meaningfully different from Velez [People v Velez (131 AD3d 129)] in that the court “made it clear that a finding of not guilty on the basis of justification of the greater charge of assault in the first degree necessitated an acquittal on all counts.” However, we have already considered and rejected the specific argument that it is proper or meaningfully different from Velez where a court employs the same language that the jury “must find the defendant not guilty on all counts” if it finds justification on the greater charge … . This language is not sufficient to convey to the jury the “stop deliberations” principle … . People v Wah, 2019 NY Slip Op 02973, First Dept 4-23-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, VACATED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION OR REQUEST, NO APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM A SUA SPONTE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge did not have the authority to vacate a default judgment in absence of a request for that relief. The First Department treated the notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal, noting that a sua sponte order is not appealable as of right:

While an order entered sua sponte is not appealable as of right … , given the lack of evidence of the timeliness of the service of the answer and given the motion court’s failure to identify a legal basis for vacating the prior order, we deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal, and grant leave … .

The court exceeded its authority in sua sponte vacating the prior order granting plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment … . In the absence of a motion or other request for relief from the order, the court’s discretion to correct the order was limited to curing any mistake, defect or irregularity “not affecting a substantial right of a party” (CPLR 5019[a]). Betts v Tsitiridis, 2019 NY Slip Op 02970, First Dept 4-22-19

 

,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND JURY IDENTIFYING THE PERSON DEPICTED IN VIDEOTAPES AS THE DEFENDANT WAS ADMISSIBLE, COURT OFFERED NO OPINION WHETHER THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a police officer’s testimony before the grand jury identifying the defendant in two videotapes was admissible. The court expressed no opinion whether the identification testimony would have usurped a jury’s role at trial:

The court erroneously dismissed an indictment charging defendant with crimes committed in two incidents, both recorded in videotapes presented to the grand jury, on the ground that a police officer who witnessed neither incident, but knew defendant from the area, identified him in each videotape. This testimony was not impermissible and it did not render the grand jury proceedings defective. The detective testified from his personal knowledge. Moreover, unlike trial jurors who can normally observe a defendant in court, grand jurors do not have that means of making a comparison between a videotape and a defendant’s appearance. In so holding, we express no opinion on the admissibility of a similar identification at trial. The “exceptional remedy of dismissal” … was not warranted. People v McKinney, 2019 NY Slip Op 02950, First Dept 4-18-19

 

,

HYPERLINK TO A 2007 ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY ARTICLE IS NOT A REPUPLICATION OF THE ARTICLE WHICH WOULD START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING AGAIN, THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT),

The First Department determined a hyperlink in an email to an allegedly defamatory article is not a republication of the article which would start the statute of limitations running again. The defamation action was therefore time-barred:

… [t]he email sent by defendant to New Yorker magazine subscribers in April 2017 containing a hyperlink to an article published in the magazine in July 2010 does not constitute republication of the article … . The article was unmodified and had been continuously archived on the same website since the printed version was first published. Moreover, it is not alleged that the 2017 email, which included the link to the article in controversy, contained any defamatory statements about plaintiff. A reference to an article that does not restate the defamatory material is not a republication of the material … . Biro v Condé Nast, 2019 NY Slip Op 02615 [171 AD3d 463], First Dept 4-4-19

 

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