You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE’S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in a matter of first impression, determined that terminating a person the employer (Fidessa) believed was married to another employee who had left to work for a competing employer stated a cause of action for discrimination based upon marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law:

The City HRL states, in relevant part: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived . . . marital status . . .(2) To refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or (3) To discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” … .

From the complaint it appears that Fidessa treated plaintiff and his partner differently from [a] similarly situated couple based on its perception that they were married to one another and the members of the other couple were not. Thus, the question is whether discrimination based on “marital status” encompasses discrimination based on marital status in relation to a person relevant to Fidessa. In other words, is an employer prohibited from discharging an employee because of the employee's marriage to a particular person.

For the purposes of this analysis, the fact that defendant was not alleged to be “biased against” married couples in all circumstances is of no moment: the factor in terminating plaintiff's employment was plaintiff's marital status in relation to the employee who left the company. Thus, plaintiff's termination was based on his marital status. Morse v Fidessa Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05975, First Dept 9-6-18

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))/MARITAL STATUS (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S LADDER WAS PLACED ON A MUDDY WATERY SURFACE IN A TUNNEL AND IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM, PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was using a ladder on a muddy, watery surface in a tunnel when it slipped out from under him:

… [P]laintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on the § 240(1) claim as against the MTA. The record establishes that the ladder that was provided to plaintiff failed to provide proper protection for him to perform the elevation-related task of re-positioning the stadium light, and MTA's opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Contrary to the contention that an issue of fact exists as to whether a platform was available to secure the ladder to, there is nothing in the record to support that. In fact the engineer merely testified that there “may or may not have been” platforms available to tie the ladder to. Gordon v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05972, First Dept 9-6-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF'S LADDER WAS PLACED ON A MUDDY WATERY SURFACE IN A TUNNEL AND IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM, PLAINTIFFS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF'S LADDER WAS PLACED ON A MUDDY WATERY SURFACE IN A TUNNEL AND IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM, PLAINTIFFS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

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))

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