You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant could not, in a post-judgment motion, contest a predicate-felony-based sentence that resulted in a less severe sentence than the correct predicate-felony-designation would have required. Courts have previously held appeals on this ground could not be brought. The First Department applied the same logic to defendant's post-judgment motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 440.20:

… 21 years later, defendant claims that he was unlawfully sentenced as a second felony offender, when he should have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender. His argument is that the court erred in his favor by imposing a lesser predicate felony adjudication than the one required by his prior record. It is apparent that defendant seeks a resentencing in order to “to upset sequentiality for purposes of determining whether the conviction . . . can serve as a predicate for multiple felony offender status” … .

As defendant was not “adversely affected” by any perceived error by the court in sentencing him, and, indeed, benefitted from the imposition of a less serious predicate status, defendant's CPL 440.20 claim must be rejected without consideration of the merits of his argument that the court erred when it pronounced sentence.(CPL 470.15[1] …).

… [C]ourts [have relied] upon CPL 470.15(1) to deny direct appeals from sentences that were equal to or shorter than the sentence the defendant would have received if the alleged error in sentence had not occurred. We hold today that CPL 470.15(1) equally bars appeals from motions which challenge such alleged sentencing errors. To do otherwise would lead to the anomalous result that a defendant could achieve a result by motion which could not be obtained on a direct appeal. People v McNeil, 2018 NY Slip Op 05970, First Dept 9-6-18

Similar issues and result in People v Francis, 2018 NY Slip Op 05971, First Dept 9-6-18.

CRIMINAL LAW (POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT)).VACATE SENTENCE, MOTION TO (POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SENTENCING  (POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP).

The First Department, upon remittitur from the Ct. of Appeals, held that the denial of a reporter’s motion to quash a subpoena for evidence of her jailhouse interview of the defendant is not appealable:

“[N]o appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” (Matter of People v Juarez , _NY3d_, 2018 NY Slip Op 04684 [2018]), quoting People v Santos , 64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]). As pertinent to the issue in this case, “an order determining a motion to quash a subpoena . . . issued in the course of prosecution of a criminal action, arises out of a criminal proceeding for which no direct appellate review is authorized” (id.; see CPL art 450). People v Juarez, 2018 NY Slip Op 05969, First Dept 9-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))

, , ,

IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined a qui tam (whistleblower) action alleging a captive insurance company (Moody's) violated the New York False Claims Act (NYFCA) by filing false tax returns properly survived the motion to dismiss. The court further held that the relator's retaliation claim, alleging unlawful termination of employment for raising questions about Moody's taxes, also properly survived the motion to dismiss. Captive insurance company's receive favorable tax treatment only if they meet certain criteria:

While the typical NYFCA claim involves the State paying out money on account of a false claim, a “reverse false claim” occurs when someone uses a false record to conceal or avoid an obligation to pay the government … . A defendant knowingly makes a false claim under the NYFCA if the defendant had “actual knowledge” of the falsity of the claim or acted “in deliberate ignorance” or “reckless disregard” of its truth or falsity (State Finance Law § 188[3][a]).

The motion court correctly found that the complaint sufficiently alleges that Moody's “tax treatment of MAC was aggressive, risky, and/or abusive due to its sham nature,” and that Moody's knowingly submitted false claims. * * *

The complaint sufficiently alleges that defendants had knowledge of relator's protected activity and that they retaliated against him because of his protected activity. Relator alleges that he repeatedly complained about MAC's noncompliance with the tax laws to Moody's tax department as well as to his superiors … . Anonymous v Anonymous, 2018 NY Slip Op 05963, First Dept 8-30-18

INSURANCE LAW (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/TAX LAW (INSURANCE LAW, IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (INSURANCE LAW, TAX LAW, IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/QUI TAM (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWER  (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))

,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the underlying breach of contract complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the contract created a joint venture. But the absence of an agreement to share costs and control precluded any finding that a joint venture had been formed by the contract:

In order to properly plead the existence of a joint venture agreement, a plaintiff must allege “acts manifesting the intent of the parties to be associated as joint venturers, mutual contribution to the joint undertaking through a combination of property, financial resources, effort, skill or knowledge, a measure of joint proprietorship and control over the enterprise, and a provision for the sharing of profits and losses”… . “An indispensable [element] of a contract of partnership or joint venture, both under common law and statutory law, is a mutual promise or undertaking of the parties to share in the profits of the business and submit to the burden of making good the losses” … .

Here, plaintiff fails to indicate the losses he would be jointly and severally liable for, and points to no provision in the alleged agreement for the sharing of any losses. Instead, there is nothing more than a conclusory allegation that any losses would be borne equally by the parties. To the contrary, the allegations in the complaint before us clearly state that any prospective losses were intended to be paid solely from defendant's share of the proceeds of the project. The failure to provide for the sharing of losses from the project is fatal to plaintiff's claim that a joint venture was created … .

Moreover, the complaint specifically alleged that management and control of the enterprise was to be completely vested in defendant, thus negating another element of a joint venture … . Slabakis v Schik, 2018 NY Slip Op 05962, First Dept 8-30-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (JOINT VENTURE, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (JOINT VENTURE, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT))/JOINT VENTURE (COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY’S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied. Seventeen years ago defendant pled guilty after being informed by his lawyer that he would not be subject to deportation. Although the First Department agreed that Supreme Court used the wrong standard of proof for analyzing ineffective assistance, the First Department held Supreme Court's finding that defendant's testimony at the hearing was not credible was a sufficient basis for denying the motion:

The motion court accepted defendant's “uncontested assertion” in his affirmation that his attorney told him that his guilty plea would not result in negative immigration consequences such as deportation, and found that he had thus established the first of the two necessary prongs for ineffective assistance of counsel set forth in Strickland v Washington (466 US 668, 688 [1984]), that is, that “counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” * * *

… [T]he second prong of the Strickland test [is] whether “there [was] a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”  … . …

Defendant's principal argument on appeal is that the hearing court applied the wrong evidentiary standard in applying the Strickland test. He maintains that the only relevant inquiry was whether there was a “reasonable probability” that he would have proceeded to trial had he known that his guilty plea would result in deportation proceedings. … This part of defendant's argument is meritorious … .

… The court made a specific finding that defendant, the only witness, was not credible, a determination that is entitled to “great deference” … . His lack of credibility negates any conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that he would have proceeded to trial but for his attorney's misadvice. People v Pinilla, 2018 NY Slip Op 05960, First Dept 8-30-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))

,

HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant church demonstrated it was entitled to the homeowner exemption from liability in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) actions stemming from plaintiff's fall from a scaffold. The failure to plead the exemption as a defense did not preclude raising it in the summary judgment motion. The Archdiocese was not an agent of the owner because it did not have the authority to control or supervise plaintiff's work.  And the Labor Law 200 cause of action should have been dismissed because the accident involved the means and methods of work controlled solely by plaintiff's employer:

Defendant Catholic Church of Christ the King made a prima facie showing that the accident in which plaintiff was injured falls within the exemption to Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6) for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (Labor Law § 240[1]; Labor Law § 241). Plaintiff was repairing a detached garage associated with a church rectory used for both residential and church purposes … . Moreover, the certificate of occupancy indicates that the rectory constituted a dwelling and a private garage … . Defendant's failure to plead this affirmative defense in its answer does not mandate the denial of its motion, since plaintiff was not surprised by the defense, and fully opposed the motion (see CPLR 3018[b] … ).

Plaintiff failed to raise issues of fact as to the applicability of the homeowner exemption. His assertion that the garage was exclusively restricted to use by teachers at an elementary school owned by the church is unsupported by the record. Bautista v Archdiocese of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 05959, First Dept 8-30-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3018 (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))/HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))

,

SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff's suit for payment on a contract was not precluded by the six-month statute of limitations in the contract. Plaintiff AWI contracted with defendant Whitestone to provide security at construction sites. Both Whitestone and AWI were named in a prevailing wage class action commenced by AWI workers. Whitestone, pursuant to a contractual provision, refused to pay AWI until the wage action was resolved. The case was not resolved within the six-month limitations period:

[AWI argues] on appeal that the contractual limitations provision is unenforceable because it enables the scenario where, even though a claim has not accrued by the time six months have passed since the last time physical work was performed, it is still time-barred. AWI is essentially arguing that, in light of Whitestone's stated position that payment was not due to AWI until such time as the Wage Action was resolved, it should not have been subjected to the “catch-22” of having to file a lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations where the claim was not yet ripe for adjudication. AWI analogizes to Executive Plaza, LLC v Peerless Ins. Co. (22 NY3d 511 [2014]). In that case, the defendant insurer issued a fire policy to the plaintiff insured which required the plaintiff to commence suit under the policy within two years of a fire. The policy further required the plaintiff, if seeking to recover replacement cost, to forbear on making any such claim until the property had actually been replaced. When the plaintiff's property burned down, it diligently acted to replace the property, but it recognized that the process would take more than two years. In an effort to protect its rights, it commenced an action on the two-year anniversary of the fire. The defendant successfully moved to dismiss the action as premature. When the replacement was complete, the plaintiff commenced a new action. The defendant removed the action to federal district court and moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. After the court granted the motion, the Second Circuit certified a question to the Court of Appeals asking whether the limitations period was enforceable.

The Court of Appeals held that it was not. While recognizing the inherent reasonableness of contractually truncated statutes of limitations, the Court held that “[a] limitation period' that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim” … . * * *

.. [W]we find that, under the circumstances, the limitations period cannot serve to bar AWI's claim … . AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v Whitestone Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05907, First Dept 8-23-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTRACT LAW, SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))

, , , , ,

THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, over a partial dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) had standing to challenge a Local Law which placed a two-year moratorium on the conversion of hotels to condominiums or other residential uses. The court further determined that the REBNY did not have standing to challenge the statute under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The REBNY alleged that 29 of its members owned hotels subject to the law:

Owners of real property who are subjected to a new zoning classification or other use restriction are “presumptively affected by the change” and “therefore technically have standing” to assert claims … .

Accepted as true for purposes of these CPLR 3211 motions, REBNY’s assertion that its member hotel owners are currently negatively affected by the moratorium is sufficient to establish standing in the plenary action and in the article 78 proceeding under ULURP [the City Charter’s Uniform Land Use Review Process] … . * * *

REBNY’s claimed environmental harm is nothing more than economic harm (i.e., the reduction in property values, the loss of business opportunities and the added expense of applying for a waiver under Local Law 50). REBNY’s own filings reflect that the organization’s constitution mentions the environment only once, and only insofar as the environment relates to economic impact. The affidavit by REBNY’s president does not salvage REBNY’s standing argument. The president claims that “SEQRA is a concern” for all REBNY members in “proximity” to the hotels due to potential impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, waste disposal and demand for public services. This argument … fails to establish injury separate and apart from injury to the general public … . Matter of Real Estate Bd. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05906, First Dept 8-23-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STANDING, THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT)).STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/HOTELS  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged his thumb was crushed when attempting to lift a roof cutting machine over a parapet at the edge of the roof in order to drop the machine to insulation material ten feet below. Three affidavits from an eyewitness (Vera) were submitted, including an affidavit submitted with the reply. The defendant argued conflicts in the affidavits created a question of fact. But the court saw no conflicts:

The motion court properly accepted Veras’s second, clarifying affidavit in plaintiff’s submission on reply. The second affidavit merely amplified the factual recitation set forth in Veras’s initial affidavit, which had been procured and drafted by the defense and omitted the pertinent detail that the workers were actually in the process of lowering the machine from the roof, and not engaged in pushing it across the flat roof, when the accident occurred. Veras’s second affidavit was a proper response to defendant’s submission, and did not contradict the statement in his first affidavit …  Nor could Veras’s second affidavit be rejected as raising a feigned issue of fact … , especially since it comported with all of the other eyewitness testimony in the case, as well as with Veras’s own early unsworn statement, and explained the ambiguity arising from the omission of additional details in his first affidavit.

We have recognized the distinction in Labor Law § 240(1) cases between contradictory evidence and evidence that is subject to explanation in granting partial summary judgment on liability to a plaintiff… .

Here, Veras’s three statements, when taken together and along with those of the three other eyewitnesses and that of plaintiff, provided a detailed and consistent recounting of the accident as having occurred during the lowering of the machine. Cuevas v Baruti Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05905, First Dept 8-23-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a concurring opinion, determined that the decision to allow the withdrawal of life support from an 80-year-old developmentally disabled person (M.G.), who was in a vegetative state, did not violate M.G.'s right to equal protection under the law. Although M.G. had died, the appeal was considered as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

This is an appeal from an order that authorized petitioner physician, after a hearing pursuant to the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA-1750-b), to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a developmentally disabled person (M.G.), in accordance with the decision of his guardian. Applying SCPA 1750-b's best interests standard, Supreme Court granted the order over the objection of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) that a meaningful inquiry into M.G.'s end-of-life wishes should have been conducted because M.G. had some prior capacity to make health care decisions … . This case presents a similar equal protection claim to the one this Court rejected in [Matter of Chantel Nicole R. (Pamela R.) 34 AD3d 99]: whether treating an intellectually and developmentally disabled person who had some prior capacity to make health care decisions differently from a previously competent, non-disabled person violates the equal protection rights of the intellectually and developmentally disabled person. In Chantel, we concluded that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because intellectually and developmentally disabled persons are not similarly situated to once competent persons and that the disparate treatment of the SCPA 1750-b was rationally related to a “legitimate [government] interest in advancing the right of [intellectually and developmentally disabled] persons to be free from prolonged suffering” … . … [w]e reject the equal protection challenge in this case as well. * * *

MHLS moved to summarily dismiss the petition, arguing that petitioner should proceed under article 29-CC of the Public Health Law and not SCPA 1750-b, since M.G. was previously found to have capacity to request life-sustaining treatment, and thus a meaningful inquiry into his end-of-life wishes should control, rather than merely a “best interests” analysis, and that proceeding otherwise would violate his equal protection rights. Dr. Sloane, however, argued that the application was properly brought under SCPA 1750-b, since M.G. was in a permanent vegetative state, lacked capacity to make health care decisions, was developmentally disabled with a full-scale IQ of 47, had no advanced directives in place, and had not discussed his wishes with his guardian, who lived in Chicago, or anyone at his community residence. * * *

… [W]e are satisfied that Supreme Court's decision with regard to M.G. was consistent with SCPA 1750-b's requirements for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The undisputed medical evidence establishes that before his demise, M.G. was in a permanent vegetative state; he suffered from multiple organ failure of the lungs, kidneys, and brain. M.G. had no neurologic function and did not respond to stimuli or breathe without a ventilator. The medical expert's opinion was that the need for hemodialysis, the chest tubes, and ventilation were ongoing, that M.G.'s lack of cognitive ability could not be cured, and that there was no chance of meaningful neurological recovery. It was thus abundantly clear that M.G. was completely unable to interact with his environment, and that the medical probability that he would ever return to a cognitive sentient state, as distinguished from a chronic vegetative existence, was virtually non-existent. Any medical treatment administered would have provided minimal, if any, benefit and would only have postponed M.B.'s death rather than improve his life. In short, M.G.'s condition was irreversible, and treatment would have imposed an extraordinary burden on him… . The best interests of the patient under SCPA 1750-b embraces not only recovery or the avoidance of pain but also a dignified death. The guardian's decision conformed with the obligation to promote the patient's well-being, and to the extent possible, the decision of M.G. himself. Matter of Sloane v M.G., 2018 NY Slip Op 05800, First Dept 8-16-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW  (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/LIFE SUPPORT  (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT ((DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED  (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))

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