You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION AFTER REVERSAL OF A RESTRAINING NOTICE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER ARE DISCRETIONARY ISSUES TO BE DECIDED UPON REMAND; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court and remanding the matter, determined that whether the judgment debtor was entitled to restitution based on the reversal of a restraining notice and whether the plaintiff is entitled to an installment payment order were not decided by the reversal, but  rather were discretionary issues to be resolved on remand. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

… CPLR 5015(d) provides that, “[w]here a judgment or order is set aside or vacated, the court may direct and enforce restitution in like manner and subject to the same conditions as where a judgment is reversed or modified on appeal.” … Thus, “CPLR 5015[d] empowers a court that has set aside a judgment or order to restore the parties to the position they were in prior to its rendition, consistent with the court’s general equitable powers” … . The essential inquiry for a court addressing a request for the equitable remedy of restitution is whether it is against equity and good conscious to permit a party to retain the money that is sought to be recovered … . The determination whether to award restitution is committed to the trial court’s discretion … . * * *

Contrary to defendant’s contention that an installment payment order cannot be directed at funds exempt from execution under CPLR 5231 (i.e., 90% of his monthly disability insurance payments), such an order is the expedient for accessing exempt income … . As Professor Siegel stated long ago, “[o]ne of [CPLR 5226’s] prime uses is in that situation . . . where it appears that the judgment debtor can afford more than the 10% to which the income execution is limited” … . Thus, “[t]he court on the [CPLR 5226] motion can direct the debtor to make regular payments to the judgment creditor in any sum it finds the debtor able to afford, not limited by the 10% that restricts the income execution of CPLR 5231” … . Hamway v Sutton, 2025 NY Slip Op 01062, First Dept 2-25-25

Practice Point: Although this opinion is fact-specific, it includes the criteria for some fundamental debtor-creditor issues, i.e., the amount of monthly disability insurance payments which is available to a judgment debtor, the income-sources which are available to a judgment debtor, whether a plaintiff is entitled to an installment payment order, the criteria for a court’s discretionary determination of the amount a judgment debtor can afford to pay every month, etc.

​

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE COLLISION; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Defendant had raised a nonnegligent explanation for the collision:

In this action arising from a vehicle collision, plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as to liability. In his sworn affidavit, he averred that he was slowing down on the expressway due to upcoming traffic congestion when his vehicle was hit in the rear by a tractor trailer truck driven by defendant Scott Martin. “It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle and imposes a duty on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation” for the collision … .

However, defendants raised an issue of fact in opposition by submitting Martin’s affidavit stating that plaintiff pulled directly in front of him from the nearby on-ramp, during inclement weather, in a manner that Martin described as “sudden.” This statement in Martin’s affidavit presented a nonnegligent explanation for the collision, raising an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent for swerving in front of Martin or cutting him off … . Madera v Charles Hukrston Truck, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00788, Frist Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: Here is a rare example of a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision which was deemed sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

 

, ,

IF THE TRIAL EVIDENCE VARIES FROM THE THEORY OF THE INDICTMENT, THE RELATED CONVICTIONS WILL BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s convictions on some counts, determined the trial evidence varied from the theory of the indictment. The facts were not explained:

This Court agrees with the parties that defendant’s conviction under count 2 of the indictment charging grand larceny in the fourth degree, as well as criminal acts 1 and 6 alleged in count 1 of the indictment charging enterprise corruption, must be reversed because the trial evidence, which included evidence suggesting that defendant threatened physical damage to construction sites through vandalism, varied from the theory of the indictment (see People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 496-498 [1988]). People v Correll, 2025 NY Slip Op 00796, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: If the trial evidence does not comport with the theory of the indictment, the related counts will be vacated.​

 

, , ,

HERE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WHICH TOLLS THE CURE PERIOD UNTIL A COURT DETERMINES WHETHER THE TENANT HAS ACTUALLY DEFAULTED; PURPOSES OF AND CRITERIA FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION CLEARLY EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and granted plaintiff’s a “Yellowstone” injunction to allow time for a court to determine the nature and status of an ambiguous lease. Supreme Court had erroneously struck the “temporary restraining order” paragraph in plaintiffs-tenants’ order to show cause, which allowed the period to cure the alleged defaults to run out resulting in termination of the lease. The opinion includes a clear explanation of the nature and equitable purpose of a Yellowstone injunction, which is applicable to commercial leases. One of the issue here was whether the lease was commercial or residential:

A Yellowstone injunction “maintains the status quo so that a commercial tenant, when confronted by a threat of termination of its lease, may protect its investment in the leasehold by obtaining a stay tolling the cure period so that upon an adverse determination on the merits the tenant may cure the default and avoid a forfeiture” … .

… [T]he Yellowstone injunction tolls the relevant cure period, thereby preventing the termination of the lease … . With the Yellowstone injunction in place, the tenant can litigate with some confidence: if the tenant prevails in the underlying dispute with the landlord, the tenant walks away from the litigation with the lease intact; if the tenant loses the underlying dispute, the tenant can cure the demonstrated lease defaults before the expiration of the remaining cure period … .

* * * Yellowstone relief is a unique injunction. Unlike a standard preliminary injunction that can be granted only upon a demanding three-part showing of a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, and that the equities favor the party seeking the preliminary injunction, a Yellowstone injunction is granted on “far less” a showing … .

The party seeking Yellowstone relief must demonstrate the following four elements: “(1) It holds a commercial lease; (2) it received from the landlord either a notice of default, a notice to cure, or a threat of termination of the lease; (3) it requested injunctive relief prior to the termination of the lease; and (4) it is prepared and maintains the ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises” … . Wharton-Bickley v 388 Broadway Owners LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00802, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the purposes of and the criteria for a Yellowstone injunction.

 

, ,

PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner, who is not related to the child, did not have standing by equitable estoppel to seek custody of or visitation with the child. The evidence did not demonstrate the relationship between petitioner and the child rose to the level of parenthood:

While the record contains evidence suggesting that petitioner and the child had an ongoing relationship throughout the child’s formative years, the record does not support the idea that disrupting such a relationship would be harmful to the child’s best interests. Petitioner never lived with the child or assumed any financial responsibilities for her. Although petitioner credibly testified that the child visited her frequently during the first three years of the child’s life, there was no evidence that petitioner consistently cared for the child or that the child looked upon petitioner as a parental figure.

… [T]here was evidence that the child did not recognize or view petitioner as parental figure … . From the child’s perspective, the only other parent she knew, aside from respondent, the child’s biological mother, was the mother’s companion, whom she regarded as her father and with whom she reported having a close, bonded relationship with, undercutting petitioner’s equitable estoppel claim … . Matter of April B. v Relisha H., 2025 NY Slip Op 00782, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing to bring a custody petition by equitable estoppel, the petitioner must demonstrate a relationship with the child which rises to the level of parenthood, not the case here.

 

,

NYPD PROPERLY REQUIRED TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ITS USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDING FACIAL RECOGNITION, IRIS RECOGNITION AND MOBILE X-RAY TECHNOLOGIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, rejected the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD’s) argument that the FOIL request for documents relating to the NYPD’s use of surveillance technologies (such as facial recognition, iris recognition and mobile x-ray technology) was unduly burdensome:

An overarching problem with the NYPD’s evidence of burdensomeness, which consisted entirely of [NYPD attorney] Murtagh’s testimony, is that it is nonspecific. To begin, Murtagh did not set forth the number of SPEX [special expense purchase] Contracts that are encompassed by the request. He also did not set out an approximate number of pages that contain potentially exempt information. * * *

The NYPD’s assertion of the burdensomeness exemption also rests on the necessity of reviewing approximately 165,000 pages of hard-copy documents. While this is a considerable task, it is eased by Supreme Court’s determination that the production could go forward quarterly, on a rolling basis. Additionally, the review is facilitated by the fact that the relevant documents are all in one place, and there is no need to search the NYPD’s precincts and departments. While Murtagh stated that only he and one colleague were qualified to review this universe of documents, he failed to explain why other NYPD employees could not be trained to do so. Finally, Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) provides that an agency may use an “outside professional service to provide copying, programming or other services required to provide the copy.” Murtagh stated that the documents are too sensitive to be shown to an outside contractor. Again, he did not grapple with the POST Act’s [Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act’s] effect on the documents’ sensitivity. Assuming that some portions of the contract documents fall within FOIL’s exemptions, Murtagh did not explain why a nondisclosure agreement would be insufficient to protect the exempt portions of the documents. Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Records Access Officer, 2025 NY Slip Op 00723, First Dept 2-6-25

Practice Point: Here the NYPD’s argument that the FOIL request for documents relating to the use of surveillance technologies was unduly burdensome was rejected.​

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, remitting the matter, determined the judge did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law when designating the defendant’s risk level under SORA:

In designating a sex offender’s risk level under SORA, “[t]he court shall render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Here, the court’s statement at the conclusion of the hearing “did not adequately set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it based its decision” to assess the points at issue on appeal and deny defendant’s motion for a downward departure … . Instead, the court simply stated: “The People have met their burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, that 135 points were properly assessed, which corresponds to a Level 3 sex offender designation. The motion for downward departure is denied.” The court’s written order repeated those statements. Therefore, we remand the matter to Supreme Court “to specify the required findings and conclusions, based on the evidence already introduced” … . People v Tolliver, 2025 NY Slip Op 00489, First Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: A judge’s designation of a defendant’s SORA risk level must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 

, , ,

EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER TENANT, THE LEASE PROVISION REQUIRING THE TENANT TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES REGARDLESS OF DEFAULT OR MERIT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lease provision which provides for attorney’s fees regardless of default or merit unenforceable as unconscionable:

Because the lease provides for attorneys’ fees regardless of default or merit, in a dispute between a residential co-op [The Dakota] and a shareholder tenant [Fletcher] , we find this provision to be unenforceable as unconscionable … . The lease is not “silent as to whether such right is contingent upon the merits of plaintiff’s action” … , but explicitly provides for attorneys’ fees whenever the tenant sues The Dakota. This interpretation is not changed by the description of the fees as “reasonable” … . “Bearing in mind that agreements providing for payment of attorneys’ fees should be construed strictly” … , we will not rewrite the parties’ agreement simply because The Dakota prevailed in the underlying litigation … .”To enforce such a provision would produce an unjust result because it would dissuade aggrieved parties from pursuing litigation and preclude tenant-shareholders from making meaningful decisions about how to vindicate their rights in legitimate instances of landlord default” … . Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2025 NY Slip Op 00396, First Dept 1-28-25

Practice Point: A lease provision which requires a tenant to pay attorney’s fees regardless of default or merit is unconscionable and will not be enforced even where the landlord won the underlying litigation.

 

PLAINTIFF’S WORK, DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE, WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE PROTECTED CONSTRUCTION-ACTIVITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s work, delivering tiles to the construction site, was covered by Labor Law 240(1). Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for injury suffered after stepping in the two-foot-deep hole near the loading ramp:

Labor Law § 240(1) protects persons engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” The task that a plaintiff is performing at the exact moment of their accident is not dispositive of whether they were engaged in a protected activity for purposes of liability under this statute … . Rather, the inquiry includes whether the plaintiff’s employer was contracted to perform the kind of work enumerated in the statutes … and whether the plaintiff was performing work “necessary and incidental to” a protected activity … . Because plaintiff’s work in delivering and unloading tiles to be used in the activity covered by Labor Law § 240(1) was “necessary and incidental” to the protected activity, he was within the class of workers protected by those statues, notwithstanding that he was not assigned to participate in the installation of the tiles … . Rodriguez v Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00411, First Dept 1-28-25

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was not involved in installation of the tiles, delivery of the tiles to the work site was a protected activity pursuant to Labor Law 240(1) as “necessary and incidental” to the installation.

 

,

IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed on the basis of the release because it was sufficiently alleged the release was induced by fraud:

Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleges that the general release that was the basis for dismissal of the complaint was fraudulently induced based on defendant’s misrepresentations upon which plaintiff justifiably relied … . For example, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendant induced plaintiff’s signature on the release by stating that if plaintiff did not sign, defendant would withdraw a New York Gaming Commission complaint that plaintiff had urged defendant to file, when, in fact, there was no complaint to withdraw because defendant had falsely represented he had filed the complaint.

Upon a “detailed analysis of whether plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the existence of overreaching or unfair circumstances such that enforcement of the general release[] would be inequitable” … , we concluded that dismissal of the complaint based on the release was not warranted. Jones v Jacobs, 2025 NY Slip Op 00377, First Dept 1-23-25

Practice Point: Here the complaint sufficiently alleged the release was induced by fraud. The complaint should not have been dismissed based on the release.​

 

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