You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW FAR DEFENDANT’S PHONE WAS FROM THE TOWER, POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MARSHALED THE EVIDENCE TO FAVOR THE PROSECUTION, THESE ERRORS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL ERRORS, CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, described a number of errors which had the cumulative effect of depriving defendant of a fair trial. Those errors include: (1) the witness from the cell phone company was not an engineer and therefore could not provide competent expert opinion about where defendant’s cell phone was in relation to the cell phone tower which picked up the signal; (2) a police officer should not have been allowed to testify that the victim had twice identified the defendant by name; (3) the charge to the jury improperly marshaled the identification evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution; (4) the court should have given the missing witness jury instruction for two lead detectives who had interviewed the victim and a witness; and (5) the judge should not have referenced the defendant’s failure to testify (twice). With respect to the cell tower and identification evidence, the court wrote:

“[T]estimony on how cell phone towers operate must be offered by an expert witness” because an analysis of the possible ranges of cell phone towers and how they operate is beyond a juror’s day-to-day experience and knowledge … . [The witness] was not an engineer and was not qualified, without an engineering background, to reach further conclusions about why defendant’s cell phone hit the Starling Avenue tower, i.e. whether it was because it was closest or strongest … . …

The trial court also permitted a police officer to testify twice, over defense objection, that the victim had identified her attacker as “male Hispanic, bald, by the name of Jose Ortiz.” This too was error. “Testimony by one witness (e.g., a police officer) to a previous identification of the defendant by another witness (e.g., a victim) is inadmissible” … . People v Ortiz, 2019 NY Slip Op 00221, First Dept 1-15-19

 

THE BATSON RECONSTRUCTION HEARING, HELD AFTER THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AN ADEQUATE RECORD FOR APPEAL, WAS ITSELF DEFICIENT, THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT TESTIFY AND THE NOTES OF THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE COURT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over two separate dissenting opinions, reversing the defendant’s convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined the Batson reconstruction hearing, held after the matter was sent back to the trial court because the record on appeal was not sufficient, did not demonstrate that the prosecution’s peremptory challenges to African-American-male venire persons were justified by nondiscriminatory reasons. The Batson reconstruction hearing was itself deficient because it was held with a different prosecutor and the original prosecutor’s notes were not provided, nor did the orignal prosecutor testify:

The purpose of a Batson reconstruction hearing is to attempt to recreate, after the fact, a record of the prosecutor’s proffered justifications for striking certain venire persons. At such a hearing, it is typical to rely on the contemporaneous notes of the prosecutor and to elicit testimony from him or her. The prosecutor testifies as a sworn witness, and is subject to cross-examination concerning the strike or strikes … .

“[T]here is no better evidence of a prosecutor’s intent than her notes from jury selection”… ; indeed, seminal opinions on Batson have referred to jury selection notes as evidence of prosecutorial bias (see e.g. Foster v Chatman, ___ US ___, 136 S Ct 1737, 1755 [2016]). In Foster, the prosecutor’s notes were not disclosed until post-conviction proceedings years later. The notes showed the letter “B” next to the names of the African American jurors and their names highlighted in green pen. Three decades after trial, the contents of the notes led the Supreme Court to reverse the defendant’s conviction.

No testimony or notes were offered at this Batson reconstruction hearing. The ADA who conducted the voir dire did not appear and his notes were never disclosed. The ADA at the reconstruction hearing could only speculate as to the motives of his colleague. This procedure was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Batson. People v Watson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00217, First Dept 1-10-19

 

 

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE MEANING OF ‘DEPRIVE’ WITH RESPECT TO THE LARCENY ELEMENT OF ROBBERY REQUIRED REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S FELONY MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s felony murder and criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined that the jury should have been instructed on the definition of “deprive” with respect to the larceny aspect of the underlying robbery:

In connection with the larceny element of attempted robbery, the offense underlying the felony murder charge, the court, upon defense counsel’s request, should have instructed the jury on the definition of “deprive” … . The failure to so charge the jury as requested constitutes reversible error, since such omission “could have misled the jury into thinking that any withholding, permanent or temporary, constituted larceny”… . Indeed, “the concepts of deprive’ and appropriate’ . . . are essential to a definition of larcenous intent’ and they connote a purpose . . . to exert permanent or virtually permanent use thereof'” … . It is the function of the jury to determine whether defendant intended to rob the victim and permanently keep the property taken from him. By failing to give the requested charge, the court usurped that function.

While there are some cases in which the court’s omission of the definition of a term or terms may constitute harmless error, under the facts of this case, the error was not harmless … . People v Ataroua, 2019 NY Slip Op 00197, First Dept 1-10-19

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THE WETNESS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED AND FELL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR, THEREFORE THE LANDLORD HAD NEITHER ACTUAL NOR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff’s deposition testimony demonstrated that the wetness on the stairs could not have been present for more than an hour. Therefore the defendant landlord had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition and the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted:

The building superintendent testified that he had no knowledge of the condition and received no complaints about it on the day of the accident. On the issue of constructive notice, although he described a reasonable cleaning and inspection routine… , there was no evidence when the stairs were last inspected or cleaned before plaintiff’s accident so as to satisfy defendant’s burden … .

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony offered in support of defendant’s motion, however, established that the water condition did not exist for a sufficient period of time to discover and remedy the problem … . Thus, there was neither actual nor constructive notice of the wetness. Although plaintiff testified that she had complained about a wet condition on the stairs on three occasions between 2009 and 2013, she presented no evidence of a recurring condition unaddressed by defendants. Plaintiff also testified that she had no reason to believe that the stair was wet when she left her apartment at 5 p.m. and that she slipped on the stairs when she returned, less than an hour later. Thus, any wet condition was present for less than an hour, and might have been there only minutes or seconds before plaintiff slipped on it …. Plaintiff failed to raise any issue of fact requiring a trial.

Plaintiff’s argument that the absence of a handrail on both sides of the staircase raises an issue of fact as to defendants’ negligence is speculative, as there is no evidence that the absence of a handrail played any role in her accident … . Perez v River Park Bronx Apts., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00196, First Dept 1-10-19

 

,

NO EVIDENCE THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN EYEWITNESS, SAW A FIREARM, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s robbery first conviction, determined that, although a witness saw a firearm, the victim did not:

… [T]he evidence did not establish the element of display of what appeared to be a firearm … . The robbery was accomplished by assaulting the victim and taking his wallet. Although an eyewitness saw the display of what appeared to be a firearm, there was no evidence that the victim ever saw it … . People v Allende, 2019 NY Slip Op 00195, First Dept 1-10-19

 

,

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

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