You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

FAILURE TO JOIN A NECESSARY PARTY JUSTIFIED DISMISSAL AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined dismissal of the Article 78 proceeding, rather than joinder of the condominium board as a necessary party, was the proper remedy. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection had denied petitioner’s request to order removal of backflow prevention devices installed in the condominium unit:

Petitioner’s failure to join as a party the condominium board, which installed the backflow prevention device in dispute, constitutes a failure to join a necessary party (see Matter of Ferrando v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 12 AD3d 287, 288 [1st Dept 2004]). Since the applicable statutory period has expired and the condominium board can no longer be joined, and proceeding in its absence would potentially be highly prejudicial to it, the proper remedy is dismissal of the proceeding rather than joinder of the condominium board (id.; see also CPLR 1001, 1003). Matter of Stephen & Mark 53 Assoc. LLC v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2019 NY Slip Op 00072 [168 AD3d 440], First Dept 1-8-19

 

BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE NOTES CONSOLIDATED BY A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) CONFERRED STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES WAS NOT REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissent. determined that defendants’ excuse for their default and their argument plaintiff bank (Wells Fargo) did not have standing were properly rejected by Supreme Court. The two dissenting justices agreed with defendants’ arguments. Defendants alleged in their motion to vacate the default that their attorney received the summary judgment motion, filed for bankruptcy and never responded to the motion. On the standing issue defendants argued that possession of the original 2005 and 2008 notes issued by a nonparty, not the subsequent Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA) note, which consolidated the 2005 and 2008 notes, was required to confer standing:

… [T]he CEMA makes clear that the consolidated note superseded the original notes and is the operative document in this case. As did the plaintiff in Weiss v Phillips (157 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2017]), Wells Fargo seeks foreclosure based on the CEMA and consolidated note. As we held the plaintiff did in Weiss, Wells Fargo established its entitlement to relief by submitting the CEMA, consolidated note, unchallenged evidence that it is the holder of the consolidated note, and nonpayment of the loan by the borrowers. As we also held in Weiss, “In this case, because of the CEMA, standing is not an issue” and any absence of the underlying notes in this action is likewise accounted for by the CEMA … . In other words, “there is no legitimate question that [Wells Fargo] is the party entitled to enforce under the [consolidated] note, as evinced by . . . the CEMA” … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Ho-Shing, 2019 NY Slip Op 00080, First Dept 1-8-19

 

,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE O

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly applied New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and chose the shorter of the statutes of limitations for a legal malpractice action. New York’s statute is three years and New Jersey’s is six years. Plaintiff was a New Jersey resident:

The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580[1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00026 [168 AD3d 407], First Dept 1-3-19

 

,

THE STATE ACTION ON A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DEBT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON CLAIM PRECLUSION OR RES JUDICATA GROUNDS BASED UPON THE DISMISSAL OF A FEDERAL ACTION AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE STATE ACTION, THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE STATE ACTION MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INTERVENE OR ASSIGN THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR CLAIM PRECLUSION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court determined that the dismissal of action in federal court to recover on a multi-million dollar notes did not preclude the state action on claim preclusion (res judicata) grounds. The opinion is fact-specific and too complicated to be fairly summarized here:

Supreme Court dismissed the action with prejudice on claim preclusion grounds, and denied the motion to amend as moot. The court found that plaintiffs herein should have intervened in the federal action, or assigned their claims to [the defendant in the federal action,] Varshavsky. The failure to do so was a “blatant misuse of the federal forum,” which resulted in a “stunning” amount of discovery, and several motions, which Supreme Court found were wasted because plaintiffs herein failed to use the federal forum to resolve all “claims aris[ing] from a common nucleus of operative facts.” * * *

The doctrine of claim preclusion does not bar plaintiffs’ claims herein. Varshavsky, the sole defendant in the federal action, was not himself the creditor of the subject loans and had no standing to assert a counterclaim for recovery of plaintiffs’ loans in that action. Plaintiffs’ putative rights to intervene as party defendants in the federal action, or to assign their claims to Varshavsky, are far from clear. Either option, intervention or assignment, might have been rejected by the federal court as an attempt to evade the strictures of diversity jurisdiction. Apart from the efficacy of these options, even if intervention or assignment were possible, there is no legal doctrine that would compel plaintiffs herein to litigate in the federal action. In short, plaintiffs herein, as nonparties to the federal litigation, are not precluded from asserting claims that no party in the federal litigation had standing to pursue. To hold otherwise would mean that a debtor may, by suing a creditor’s principal or associate, require the creditor to participate in the action or have its claims precluded. Avilon Auto. Group v Leontiev, 2019 NY Slip Op 00058, First Dept 1-3-19

 

,

THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFECTS IN THE HANDRAIL OR THE STAIR RISER HEIGHTS CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OVER $500,000 PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT WAS VACATED AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the plaintiff’s jury verdict (over $500,000) in this stairway slip and fall case and ordered a new trial, finding that plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify about defects in the handrail because the trial evidence did not allege the handrail was a proximate cause of the fall. The First Department further held, without explanation, that the riser heights should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability:

… [D]efendants’ argument that there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to charge the jury on theories that either riser heights or the handrail were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall, has merit… . Although plaintiff testified that it was her usual habit to hold a handrail while descending stairs, her testimony was equivocal on whether she held the handrail that day. Further, she testified that she did not attempt to reach for a handrail at the time of her fall, because the accident happened too fast. Nor did she provide any testimony connecting the handrail to her optical illusion theory. Thus, plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify that the handrail was a contributing cause of plaintiff’s fall, and the jury should not have been charged on the question whether the handrail was too short. Moreover, while the final step’s size may have helped contribute to plaintiff’s claim of optical illusion, the riser heights in the staircase should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability.

The trial court’s response to a jury note asking whether the building was “up to code” was incorrect in light of the prior summary judgment order. Rather than responding that there was no evidence that the code was either violated or complied with, the jury should have been informed that the building code was not applicable to the staircase. Landau v Balbona Rest. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00051, First Dept 1-3-19

EXPERT OPINION

,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly applied New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and chose the shorter of the statutes of limitations for a legal malpractice action. New York’s statute is three years and New Jersey’s is six years. Plaintiff was a New Jersey resident:

The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580[1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00026 [168 AD3d 407], First Dept 1-3-19

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCAFFOLD TILTED OR COLLAPSED CAUSING EVERYTHING IN IT TO CRASH ONTO HIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted:

Plaintiffs established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff Steven Kind was injured when one end of a scaffold that he and a coworker were using to wash exterior windows on a building dropped out from under him and the scaffold came to rest at an angle, causing everything in it to crash down on him. The tilting or collapse of the scaffold was prima facie evidence of a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … , and plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate a specific defect … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. The conclusion of the Department of Labor investigator that the scaffold tilted because plaintiff and his coworker caused a safety line to become caught in a spool for the scaffold’s suspension cables was speculation unsupported by the evidence … . Furthermore, defendant Titanium Scaffold Services, Inc., which contracted to maintain the scaffold, was an agent for purposes of the Labor Law. Kind v 1177 Ave. of the Ams. Acquisitions, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00029, First Dept 1-3-19

 

, ,

THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY OF LIABILITY, AFTER THE ACTION WAS STARTED PLAINTIFF LEARNED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS A PASSENGER WAS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO TRANSPORT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CAR TO WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine (CPLR 203(f)) allowed plaintiff, Polanco, to serve a supplemental summons and complaint against the employer of Elias-Tejada, the driver of the car in which plaintiff’s decedent was a passenger. The Elias-Tejada car stalled on a bridge and was struck from behind. Plaintiff (Polanco) did not learn until after the action was started that Elias-Tejada was paid by his employer, Fairway, to transport the other occupants of his car, all Fairway employees, to work. Plaintiff (Polanco) sought to add Fairway as a defendant under a respondeat superior theory and the First Department held he could do so:

The claims that Polanco seeks to assert against Fairway arise out of the same occurrence as alleged in the complaint against Elias-Tejada [and the other two defendant drivers]. … [W]e find that Polanco also satisfied the second condition, because under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee committed while the employee is acting in the scope of his or her employment … . Based on Elias-Tejada’s employer/employee relationship with Fairway, they are united in interest because a judgment against one of them will similarly affect the other … . … [T]he Fairway defendants can, therefore, be charged as having notice of Polanco’s potential claims against them, based upon the claims asserted against Elias-Tejada in the original summons and complaint … . …

… Only later, after depositions were held, including those of a key Fairway employee and Elias-Tejada, did [plaintiff] learn that Fairway compensated Elias-Tejada for hosting the car pool and that this travel arrangement was condoned, if not actually implemented and encouraged, by Fairway’s human resources department because Fairway reimbursed him for tolls and mileage. Ramirez v Elias-Tejada, 2019 NY Slip Op 00021, First Dept  1-3-19

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , , , ,

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD AND JUDICIARY LAW 487 ALLEGATIONS STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT LAW FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS DUPLICATED THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that plaintiff’s legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action against the law firm which represented her in divorce proceedings should have been dismissed. The opinion is fact-specific. The legal issues mentioned include: the breach of fiduciary duty allegations were identical to the legal malpractice allegations and therefore required the “but for” element of legal malpractice (which was missing), and the fraud and Judiciary Law 487 claims were identical and duplicated the legal malpractice allegations, requiring dismissal. Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP,  2018 NY Slip Op 09030, First Dept 12-27-18

 

, , ,

HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERMANENT STAY OF EVICTION WAS A PROPER ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED TENANTS PURSUANT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Term, First Department, ruled that a hearing should be held to determine whether eviction proceedings should be permanently stayed. A guardian (GAL) had been appointed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the disabled tenants who had not complied with stipulations for fumigation of the apartment to rid it of bed bugs. With the GAL’s help the apartment was eventually fumigated. Under the Fair Housing Act the tenants were entitled to accommodations for their disabilities. A hearing was required to determine whether a permanent stay of eviction was an appropriate accommodation:

Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as amended, it is unlawful to discriminate in housing practices on the basis of a “handicap” (42 USC § 3604[f][2][A]). Handicap is very broadly defined, and a person is considered handicapped and thereby protected under the FHA if he or she: 1. Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or 2. Has a record of such impairment, or 3. Is regarded as having such an impairment.

No specific diagnosis is necessary for a person to be “handicapped” and protected under the statute. In fact, the determination may even be based upon the observations of a lay person … . The appointment of an article 81 guardian for tenants sufficiently establishes that these tenants are “handicapped” within the meaning of the FHA, leading us to consider whether they are entitled to a reasonable accommodation. What is “reasonable” varies from case to case, because it is necessarily fact-specific  … . The overarching guiding factor, however, is that a landlord is obligated to provide a tenant with a reasonable accommodation if necessary for the tenant to keep his or her apartment. The ” refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the handicapped individual] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling'” is a discriminatory practice… . A landlord does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it puts other tenants at risk, but should consider whether such risks can be minimized … . Matter of Prospect Union Assoc. v DeJesus, 2018 NY Slip Op 09016, First Dept 12-27-18

 

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