You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS COLLATERAL TO THE CONTRACT, NOT THE BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that contract provisions cannot be the bases for a fraudulent inducement cause of action. Only matters collateral to the contract will support fraudulent inducement:

Plaintiffs alleged six different bases for the fraudulent inducement claim. The alleged misrepresentations regarding assistance operating the preschool, the working fire alarm, and use of the stroller area, area near the kitchen, and upstairs gym, are all ” directly related to a specific provision of the contract,'” not collateral to the lease, and cannot be used to sustain a fraudulent inducement claim … . Plaintiffs properly pled a fraudulent inducement claim with respect to defendants materially misrepresenting that a 2004 letter of no objection was all plaintiffs would need, failing to disclose to plaintiffs that defendant intended to remove oversight over homeless individuals on the property, and fraudulently misrepresenting that homeless individuals were living on the property legally, when they were doing so illegally … . Plaintiffs properly pled that, as a result of these statements, which plaintiffs allege were made with the intention to deceive them, they signed the lease and developed the property … . Iken v Bohemian Brethren Presbyt. Church, 2018 NY Slip Op 04830, First Dept 6-28-18

FRAUD (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS COLLATERAL TO THE CONTRACT, NOT THE BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS COLLATERAL TO THE CONTRACT, NOT THE BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LEASE, CONTRACT LAW, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS COLLATERAL TO THE CONTRACT, NOT THE BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))

CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff attorney’s contingency fee retainer violated 22 USC 1623 (f) (which prohibits contingency fees in excess of 10% in actions governed by the federal statute) and was therefore unlawful and void under federal law. The unjust enrichment theory was not available to the plaintiff on equitable and evidentiary grounds:

Plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation for services rendered under the subject contingency fee retainer. It is undisputed that the terms of the retainer violated 22 USC § 1623(f), and, thus, the retainer was “unlawful and void” under federal law. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s argument that the void retainer allowed him to pursue a quasi-contract theory of recovery is unavailing. In light of the illegality of the retainer, the court properly found that plaintiff had “unclean hands” to foreclose any claim of unjust enrichment … . Furthermore, plaintiff failed to plead a relationship with defendant that could have caused reliance or inducement on plaintiff’s part sufficient to sustain an unjust enrichment claim … . Sorenson v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 04828, First Dept 6-28-18

​ATTORNEYS (FEES, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTINGENCY FEES (ATTORNEYS, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ATTORNEY’S FEES, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/UNCLEAN HANDS (UNJUST ENRICHMENT, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/RETAINER (ATTORNEY’S FEES, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))

TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined tier 3 police officers were not entitled to service credit for periods of unpaid child care leave:

In recognizing that Administrative Code § 13-107(k) did not apply to tier 3 correction officers and that RSSL [Retirement and Social Security Law] § 513 had to be amended to define a service credit for unpaid child care leave, the legislature also evinced its understanding that extending the benefit to tier 3 police officers would require another amendment to RSSL § 513. However, it declined to extend the benefit to tier 3 police officers.

In 2012, the legislature amended Administrative Code § 13-218(h), not to make the unpaid child care leave service credit benefit available to tier 3 police officers but “to make new NYC Tier 3 uniformed correction members ineligible to obtain service credit for child care leave in order to equate their benefits with Tier 3 police/fire benefits” … . This legislation is consistent with the legislative intent in the creation of tier 3, “a comprehensive retirement program designed to provid[e] uniform benefits for all public employees and eliminat[e] the costly special treatment of selected groups . . . inherent in the previous program” … . Lynch v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04826, First Dept 6-28-18

​RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/[POLICE OFFICERS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/CHILD CARE LEAVE (POLICE OFFICERS, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))

,

CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city’s motion for summary judgment in this crosswalk pedestrian accident case should have been granted. The city had assigned a school crossing guard for the crosswalk where infant plaintiff was struck by a school bus, but the guard had called in sick that day. The First Department held the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a special relationship with the city:

In order to establish that the City voluntarily assumed a duty, plaintiffs have the burden of showing: (1) an assumption by the City’s agents, through promises or action, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of plaintiffs; (2) knowledge on the part of the City’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the City’s agents and plaintiffs; and (4) justifiable reliance by plaintiffs… . Here, the record shows that no special duty existed between the City and plaintiffs before the accident. There was no direct contact between the City’s agents and plaintiffs, and the facts that the school crossing guard greeted infant plaintiffs and the children relied upon the crossing guard’s instructions when the guard was at the intersection before the accident is insufficient to create a special duty. Ivan D. v Little Richie Bus Serv. Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04823, First Dept 6-28-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CROSSWALKS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the recording of a phone call made by defendant while he was detained was properly subpoenaed by the prosecution and defendant’s motion to preclude the recording was properly denied:

The motion court correctly declined to preclude a recorded telephone call that defendant made while detained before trial. Defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of the call, made primarily on Fourth Amendment grounds, is unavailing. Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of the call based on his receipt of multiple forms of notice that his calls would be recorded, and he was not entitled to separate notice that the calls might be subpoenaed by prosecutors… . Recordings of detainees’ calls are made for security purposes, and not for the purpose of gathering evidence. However, like any other nonprivileged evidence that is possessed by a nonparty and is relevant to a litigation, it may be subject to a lawful subpoena. Accordingly, once defendant consented to the recording of his phone calls, and chose nevertheless to make a call containing a damaging statement, he had no reasonable expectation that the call would be immune from being subpoenaed by the prosecution. People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 6-28-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRISON PHONE CALLS, RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))/PRISON PHONE CALLS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))

AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by Justice Gische, determined the issue of whether KG, on equitable estoppel grounds, had standing to seek custody of a child adopted by her former same-sex partner, CH, required remittal because the issue was not considered by Supreme Court. The couple had an agreement to raise an adopted child. The First Department found ample support in the record for Supreme Court’s factual finding that the agreement was terminated when the couple’s relationship dissolved before the child was adopted. The fact that the agreement was deemed terminated did not, however, prohibit the court from considering whether CH was equitably estopped from denying that KG had standing to seek custody:

Although prior to Brooke [28 NY3d 1] the doctrine of equitable estoppel was not available to establish standing on behalf of nonbiological, nonadoptive parents, it has been relied upon by New York courts in resolving many family disputes involving children. For instance, the legal doctrine has been applied to prevent an adult from denying paternity where a child has justifiably relied upon the representations of a man that he is the father and a parent-child relationship has developed … ,It has also been applied to prevent a biological father from asserting paternity when he has acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man … . Recently, it was successfully invoked to prevent a sperm donor from asserting paternity to a child born in an intact marriage … . A unifying characteristic of these cases is the protection of ” the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship'” … . Equitable estoppel requires careful scrutiny of the child’s relationship with the relevant adult and is ultimately based upon the best interest of the child … . Likewise, in the context of standing under Domestic Relations Law § 70, equitable estoppel concerns whether a child has a bonded and de facto parental relationship with a nonbiological, nonadoptive adult. The focus is and must be on the child … . It is for this reason that the child’s point of view is crucial whenever equitable estoppel is raised. * * *

We recognize that not every loving relationship that a child has with an adult will confer standing under Domestic Relations Law § 70, no matter how close or committed. It requires a relationship that demonstrates the relevant adult’s permanent, unequivocal, committed and responsible parental role in the child’s life. The underpinning of an equitable estoppel inquiry is whether the actual relationship between the child and relevant adult rises to the level of parenthood. Anything less would interfere with the biological or adoptive parent’s right to decide with whom his or her child may associate … . Consent, whether express or implied, is an important consideration that bears upon the issue. It may be that in this case the issue of CH’s consent becomes a predominant consideration in the ultimate determination of whether equitable estoppel can be established. We only hold that the record developed at trial does not permit us to make the full consideration necessary to finally determine the issue of equitable estoppel at this point

Because the record on equitable estoppel is incomplete, we remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Matter of K.G. v C.H., 2018 NY Slip Op 04683, First Dept 6-26-18

​FAMILY LAW (AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/CUSTODY (/PAREAN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/STANDING (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, PARENT, AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/PARENT (CUSTODY, AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/SAME-SEX PARTNERS (FAMILY LAW, PARENT, CUSTODY, AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/ADOPTION (PARENT, SAME-SEX PARTNERS, CUSTODY, STANDING, AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW (PARENT, SAME-SEX PARTNERS, CUSTODY, STANDING, AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant general contractor was not entitled to dismissal of the punitive damages claim in connection with a high rise fire during demolition. 42 feet of the water standpipe had been removed, stairways were blocked and a no smoking policy was not enforced. One hundred firefighters were injured and two were killed fighting the blaze. The court found that the general contractor (Bovis) could be held liable for punitive damages based upon the acts and omissions of its safety manager, Melofchik. The court further found that the motion court properly considered plaintiffs’ new motion papers which were submitted before Bovis’s reply papers were due and which did not change the substance of the prior papers or prejudice Bovis:

Conduct justifying punitive damages “must manifest spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called wilful or wanton'” … . Although issues of fact exist as to whether Bovis’s site safety manger, Jeff Melofchik, was present shortly after the subcontractor removed the 42-foot section of the pipe in November 2006, and whether Melofchik became aware at that point that the segment was part of the standpipe, it is undisputed that Melofchik did not test the standpipe system to ensure that it was operational during the 16-month period from March 2006 (when Bovis became the general contractor on the project) to August 2007 (when the fire occurred). …

An employer may be assessed punitive damages for an employee’s conduct “only where management has authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the conduct giving rise to such damages, or deliberately retained the unfit servant,” such that it is complicit in that conduct … . Complicity is evident when “a superior officer in the course of employment orders, participates in, or ratifies outrageous conduct” … . Although Melofchik was not a “superior officer” and nothing suggests that Bovis management authorized or ratified Melofchik’s conduct, an issue of fact exists as to whether management was aware of Melofchik’s incompetence but still “deliberately retained the unfit servant … .”  Borst v Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04679, First Dept 6-26-18

​NEGLIGENCE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/DAMAGES (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION PAPERS, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))

,

NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that New York’s tax scheme did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs argued New York permitted double taxation of their intangible income by both New York, where they were “statutory residents.” and Connecticut, where they domiciled. The First Department rejected plaintiffs’ contentions “that this taxation burdens interstate commerce, particularly by inhibiting their free movement into New York State to work and their ability to buy or lease a home in New York due to the risk of being deemed a resident and subject to double taxation of intangible income… [and] that New York’s tax scheme fails the ‘internal consistency’ test, which requires fair apportionment of income between states and nondiscrimination against interstate commerce …”. The First Department found that the controlling New York case, Matter of Tamagni v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y. (91 NY2d 530 [1998]…), had not been abrogated by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v Wynne (___ US ___, 135 S Ct 1787 [2015]):

… [T]he income at issue … in the instant case … was not “out-of-state income” but intangible investment income, which “has no identifiable situs,” “cannot be traced to any jurisdiction outside New York,” and is “subject to taxation by New York as the State of residence” … . Edelman v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2018 NY Slip Op 04672, First Dept (6-26-18)

​TAX LAW (NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (TAX LAW, COMMERCE CLAUSE, (NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))/COMMERCE CLAUSE (TAX LAW, NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))/INTANGIBLE INCOME (TAX LAW, NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY DOUBLE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLE INCOME RE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE STATUTORY RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT ABSCONDED DURING TRIAL, WAS INVOLUNTARILY RETURNED ON A WARRANT 20 YEARS LATER, AND FILED HIS APPELLATE BRIEF 30 YEARS AFTER CONVICTION, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department dismissed the appeal of the defendant who had absconded during trial, was subsequently returned on a warrant 20 years later, and filed his brief 30 years after conviction:

The People seek to dismiss defendant’s appeal based on the “failure of timely prosecution or perfection thereof,” pursuant to CPL 470.60(1). Where a defendant’s appeal remained pending for a long time while he or she was a fugitive, whether the appeal should be permitted to proceed once the defendant is returned to custody is “subject to the broad discretion of the Appellate Division”… . In exercising its discretion, the Appellate Division may consider factors including whether defendant’s flight caused “a significant interference with the operation of [the] appellate process”; whether defendant’s absence “so delayed the administration of justice that the People would be prejudiced in locating witnesses and presenting evidence at any retrial should the defendant be successful on appeal”; the length of the defendant’s absence; whether the defendant “voluntarily surrendered”; and the merits of the appeal …

Applying these standards, we exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal. There was an extensive delay — more than 27 years — from June 12, 1987, when counsel, on defendant’s behalf, filed a notice of appeal, until September 2014, when defendant sought poor person relief and assignment of counsel, and defendant finally filed his appellate brief in June 2017, 30 years after his conviction. The delay was caused entirely by defendant’s own conduct in absconding from trial, and remaining a fugitive for close to 20 years. Defendant did not surrender voluntarily; rather, he was returned involuntarily on the warrant after being arrested and convicted under another name in Massachusetts. An important transcript and the court file, each of which has a bearing on issues defendant seeks to raise on appeal, have been lost, and it is unreasonable to expect a court to preserve such materials forever. The delay of over 30 years would severely prejudice the People if required to retry the case after appeal. Thus, these factors demonstrate that dismissal is appropriate … . We also note that this Court has fully complied with the requirement … that this determination be made after appellate counsel has been assigned and permitted to review the record. People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 04669, First Dept 6-25-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, DEFENDANT ABSCONDED DURING TRIAL, WAS INVOLUNTARILY RETURNED ON A WARRANT 20 YEARS LATER, AND FILED HIS APPELLATE BRIEF 30 YEARS AFTER CONVICTION, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ABSCONDED DURING TRIAL, WAS INVOLUNTARILY RETURNED ON A WARRANT 20 YEARS LATER, AND FILED HIS APPELLATE BRIEF 30 YEARS AFTER CONVICTION, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (FIRST DEPT))/FUGITIVES (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT ABSCONDED DURING TRIAL, WAS INVOLUNTARILY RETURNED ON A WARRANT 20 YEARS LATER, AND FILED HIS APPELLATE BRIEF 30 YEARS AFTER CONVICTION, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motions to dismiss the legal malpractice causes of action against original (Neimark defendants) and successor counsel (Budin defendants) were properly denied. Original counsel did not file a notice of claim and successor counsel did not seek leave to file a late notice of claim:

The Budin defendants, as successor counsel, had an opportunity to protect plaintiff’s rights by seeking discretionary leave, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), to serve a late notice of claim. Whether the Budin defendants would have prevailed on such motion will have to be determined by the trier of fact … . We do not find this determination to be speculative given that Supreme Court will weigh established factors in exercising its General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) discretion … .

We agree with plaintiff’s argument that the Neimark defendants’ failure to serve a timely notice of claim, as of right, on the New York City Department of Education in the underlying personal injury action remains a potential proximate cause of his alleged damages. Plaintiff has a viable claim against the Neimark defendants despite the fact that the Budin defendants were substituted as counsel before the expiration of time to move to serve a late notice of claim. Thus, the Budin defendants’ substitution can only be deemed a superseding and intervening act that severed any potential liability for legal malpractice on the part of the Neimark defendants if a determination is made that a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim would have been successful in the underlying personal injury action … . Liporace v Neimark & Neimark, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 04668, First Dept 6-26-18

​ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (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