You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who repeatedly expressed a predisposition to credit police testimony, and a belief that innocent defendants would testify on their own behalf, since the totality of his responses established that he would be unable to put aside his inclinations and be fair and impartial … . At no point did the panelist give an unequivocal assurance that he would put aside his beliefs and concerns and render an impartial verdict … . People v Brith, 2018 NY Slip Op 07250, First Dept 10-30-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Dram Shop Act cause of action was properly granted, but the negligence cause of action in this third-party assault case should not have been granted. There was uncontested evidence the assailant did not appear to be drunk when served. But there was a question of fact whether the defendant restaurant took adequate measures to protect plaintiff from a second attack by the assailant:

Defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; see also Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65). A witness testified that plaintiff’s assailant did not appear visibly intoxicated at the time he was served two drinks by defendant. This evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie showing that the assailant was not visibly intoxicated at the time he was served alcohol, since it is clear from the record that he was not served from that point in time until he attacked plaintiff … . …

While the first assault was sudden and unforseeable, and therefore not actionable, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it took reasonable actions to protect plaintiff from the assailant on the second assault and that it was not foreseeable. It is true that the husband of defendant’s owner averred that he was escorting the assailant, who appeared to have calmed down “somewhat,” from the premises, when he suddenly lunged two or three feet to where plaintiff was standing, and struck him. However, another witness testified that immediately prior to assailant’s attack on plaintiff, he did not see anyone accompanying or escorting the assailant while the assailant exited defendant’s establishment. Ricaurte v Inwood Beer Garden & Bistro Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07242, First Dept 10-30-18

NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY  (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined an unsigned form purporting to make respondent (Cunney) the beneficiary of decedent’s IRA was insufficient and did not constitute substantial compliance:

The Surrogate correctly determined that, despite the decedent’s clear intent to designate respondent Cunney as the beneficiary of her IRAs, Cunney is not entitled to the proceeds of the IRAs in the absence of a signed change of beneficiary form (see EPTL 13-3.2[e][1] [“A designation of a beneficiary or payee to receive payment upon death of the person making the designation . . . must be made in writing and signed by the person making the designation”] …).

Citing the doctrine of substantial compliance, Cunney argues that Morgan Stanley’s Client Data Form for New Personal Accounts filled out in the decedent’s handwriting is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a signed writing, as that document did not require a signature. However, she cites no authority for excusing the signed writing requirement in the context of a retirement account. Indeed, as the Surrogate noted, even in the insurance context, where strict compliance is not always required … , this Court has rejected the contention that an insured’s specific testamentary disposition of an insurance policy in a will constitutes substantial compliance with the policy’s requirements for effecting a change in the beneficiary of the policy … . Matter of Durcan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07241, First Dept 10-30-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT))/ESTATES POWERS AND TRUSTS LAW (EPTL) 13-3.2 (UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT))/IRA (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT))/BENEFICIARIES (IRA, UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the arbitrator-panel (JAMS) did not have the power to reconsider its initial finding (called a partial final award or PFA) that the $10 million settlement paid by Allied was not a “loss” within the meaning of the insurance policy issued to Allied by AISLIC. The parties had agreed to first decide whether the settlement constituted a “loss” and then determine the applicable costs stemming from the insured’s defense of the claim against it.  The First Department held that the arbitrator-panel did not have the authority to reconsider the initial PFA and reverse itself (finding that the settlement did actually constitute a “loss”) in the course of considering the defense and indemnification issues:

Here, when the panel reconsidered the PFA, it exceeded its authority based on the common law doctrine of functus officio. The doctrine of functus officio provides that absent an agreement to the contrary, after an arbitrator renders a final award, the arbitrator may not entertain an application to change the award, “except … to correct a deficiency of form or a miscalculation of figures or to eliminate matter not submitted”(…CPLR 7509; CPLR 7511[c]). “In order to be final,’ an arbitration award must be intended by the arbitrators to be their complete determination of all claims submitted to them” … . “Generally, in order for a claim to be completely determined, the arbitrators must have decided not only the issue of liability of a party on the claim, but also the issue of damages” … .

However, “the submission by the parties determines the scope of the arbitrators’ authority” … . Thus, “if the parties agree that the [arbitration] panel is to make a final decision as to part of the dispute, the arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to do so . . . [and] once [the] arbitrators have finally decided the submitted issues, they are, in common-law parlance, functus officio,’ meaning that their authority over those questions is ended” … . American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07194, First Dept 10-25-18

ARBITRATION (THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/FUNCTUS OFFICIO (ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))

,

COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, vacate its prior decision and order and reinstate a 2014 judgment. The motion papers did not request any relief that could be the basis of the court’s action:

“[A] trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment” … . Although “a court may grant relief[] pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion . . . ” … , no such clause was contained in plaintiff’s notice of motion. In the absence of any cross motion from the defendants, or any other kind of request for vacatur of the court’s prior order decision and prior order and reinstatement of the prior judgment, the court erred in doing so on its own initiative. Howell v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07178, First Dept 10-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/JUDGES (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant property owner’s (Reda’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether the area where plaintiff fell was in a designated bus stop, where the city would be responsible, or in an area the NYC Administrative Code requires that defendant maintain:

Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell over a gap between flagstones on a public sidewalk abutting property owned by Reda, and south of a bus shelter maintained by defendant City. Under Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210, an abutting property owner has a duty to maintain the public sidewalk … , but the City continues to be responsible for maintaining any part of the sidewalk that is “within a designated bus stop location” … .

In support of her motion for summary judgment, Reda submitted evidence, including photographs showing where plaintiff fell near a bus shelter and next to a yellow-marked curb, and the City’s admission that it owns the bus stop pole shown in a photograph. However, absent any applicable statute or any evidence defining the parameters of a bus stop, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the part of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell is within a designated bus stop that the City is required to maintain … . McCormick v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07175, First Dept 10-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SIDEWALKS, BUS STOP, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/BUS STOPS (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))

,

UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner was entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Defendant was exempt from liability under the NYC Administrative Code and that defendant’s fence with a gate did not constitute a special use of the sidewalk:

In this trip and fall case involving an uneven sidewalk, defendant Ortiz’s testimony that she lived in a one-family home adjacent to the sidewalk was sufficient competent evidence to make a prima facie showing that she qualified for the exemption provided at Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210(b) … .

In opposition, plaintiff offers no evidence to the contrary, and no authority for her proposition that a party seeking to demonstrate that their home is a one-, two- or three-family home exempt from § 7-210 must produce a deed.

Nor is defendant Ortiz liable based on a theory that her fence, containing a gate, constituted a special-use. “The principle of special use, a narrow exception to the general rule, imposes an obligation on the abutting landowner, where he puts part of a public way to a special use for his own benefit and the part used is subject to his control, to maintain the part so used in a reasonably safe condition to avoid injury to others. . . . Special use cases usually involve the installation of some object in the sidewalk or street or some variance in the construction thereof” … . There is no evidence in the record that defendant’s fence is built on or in the sidewalk. That the gate, which defendant testified is “almost never” used, would permit herself and others to enter her property does not constitute a special use, as those using it would merely walk across the sidewalk, a use not “unrelated to the public use” … . Moreover, as the defect in the sidewalk is adjacent to defendant’s gate, not in front of it, it was plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that this alleged “special use” caused or contributed to the defect … . Plaintiff offered no such evidence. Hernandez v Ortiz, 2018 NY Slip Op 07075, First Dept 10-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that defendant should be given the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds. Although deportation was mandatory, defendant was told only that he may be deported:

Defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to advise him that his guilty plea to an aggravated felony would result in mandatory deportation, and instead merely advised him that his plea would have “immigration consequences,” would “impact his ability to stay in the country” and “will probably very well end up with [defendant] being deported from this country” … .

Defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been made aware of the deportation consequences of his plea … , and we hold this appeal in abeyance for that purpose. People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 07072, First Dept 10-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))

,

LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this third party assault case was properly denied. Infant plaintiff was assaulted in an alleyway outside the building where tenants left their trash. There was a question of fact whether the assault was foreseeable. The alternative theory of liability, that defendant failed to maintain safety measures voluntarily undertaken in the alleyway, was rejected because plaintiff did not demonstrate reliance on those measures:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the alleyway, in which tenants of the building deposited their trash, was not a public area where defendant had no duty to maintain minimal security precautions … . Issues of fact as to the foreseeability of the assault are presented by the record evidence of previous criminal activity in or at the building, including drug dealing, multiple burglaries, including one at gunpoint, and gunshots and the discovery of empty shell casings outside the building . Issues of fact exist as to whether the gate to the alleyway was maintained in a closed and locked condition and whether there was sufficient lighting in the alleyway. Issues of fact also exist as to whether the open gate or any insufficiency in the lighting was a proximate cause of the assault … . Accordingly, considering the neighborhood’s susceptibility to incidents of violent crime, we are unable to hold as a matter of law that defendant upheld its common law duty to maintain the premises in a safe and secure manner.

However, we reject plaintiff’s alternative theory that defendant is liable to the extent that it voluntarily provided a locked gate, lighting, or video monitoring for the alleyway, and then negligently maintained those items. Even were we to conclude that defendant created a duty by introducing such security measures, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was lulled into a false sense of security such that she neglected to take precautions that she would have otherwise taken in the absence of those measure … . Sanchez v Morris Ave. Equities Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07071, First Dept 10-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (LANDLORD-TENANT, NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs (the Rothchilds) were entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case:

The record shows that the accident occurred in heavy, stop-and-go traffic, and DeSouza [defendant] testified to driving three-to-five miles per hour for at least 10 minutes prior to the accident, that he observed cars immediately in front of the Rothchilds’ vehicle, and that he did not place his foot on his brake until his moving vehicle was two feet from the Rothchilds’ back bumper. A driver is supposed to make reasonable use of his or her senses … , and maintain a safe distance from other motor vehicles (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…), which was not done in this case. Miller v DeSouza, 2018 NY Slip Op 07065, First Dept 10-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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