You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action. Plaintiff alleged the step ladder he was using wobbled causing him to fall. The fact that there were no witnesses to the incident did not preclude summary judgment:

Plaintiff's testimony that, as he was climbing down a six-foot scaffold, the scaffold wobbled, causing him to fall to the floor, establishes prima facie defendants' liability under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating that defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices to prevent him from falling when the scaffold moved … . The fact that plaintiff was the only witness to his accident does not preclude summary judgment in his favor, since nothing in the record controverts his account of the accident or calls his credibility into question… .

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition, relying solely on hearsay statements in the accident report and the speculative opinion of their expert… . For the same reason, defendants failed to establish prima facie their freedom from liability. Rroku v West Rac Contr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06312, First Dept 9-27-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY’S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff (Melcher) can present expert testimony (by Lupkin) about the amount of Melcher's legal costs attributable to defendant-attorney's (Corwin's) alleged use of an allegedly forged document in violation of Judiciary Law 487:

… [W]e are cognizant of the “evident intent [of Judiciary Law § 487] to enforce an attorney's special obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their truth-seeking function” … . Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to modify Supreme Court's order to permit Melcher to call Lupkin to testify as an expert witness on damages at trial, with the proviso that his testimony be limited to the assessment of the excess legal costs that Melcher was required to incur, during the period beginning February 17, 2004, and ending May 11, 2009, as the proximate result of any violation of Judiciary Law § 487 by Corwin that the factfinder may find to have occurred, as discussed above. Melcher v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 06310, First Dept 9-27-18

ATTORNEYS (PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY'S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ATTORNEYS, JUDICIARY LAW 487, PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY'S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (ATTORNEYS, JUDICIARY LAW 487, PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY'S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (ATTORNEYS, PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY'S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT))

HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the two habeas corpus petitions, stemming from the denial of bail in an attempted murder case, were properly denied. The petitioner was charged with the attempted murder of her husband. It was petitioner's cousin who actually attacked petitioner's husband. The cousin had been convicted after trial before the judge who twice denied petitioner's bail applications, resulting in the two habeas corpus petition's before the First Department:

… [W]e find that the habeas court in the first proceeding correctly found that Justice Farber did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner's initial bail application. The denial of bail was amply supported by the seriousness of the charges including attempted murder, the potential sentence of at least 5 years and up to 25 years in prison for the class B violent felonies of attempted murder in the second degree or first-degree burglary … , as well as the strength of the evidence. Notably, Justice Farber had just presided over Nolan's trial for carrying out the plot allegedly orchestrated by petitioner … .

To the extent [petitioner] argues that the court improperly focused on the seriousness of the charges and the sentencing exposure to the exclusion of other factors, the court's failure to explicitly address each statutory factor or every specific argument raised by the parties on the record does not establish that the court abused its discretion. The court implicitly based its ruling on all of the parties' arguments … . * * *

“Petitioner's position, if accepted, would mandate that bail be granted in every case in which the accused has the financial resources to offer private security and monitoring, thereby depriving the court of its discretion to grant or deny bail on consideration of the factors enumerated in CPL 510.30(2)(a). While petitioner claims that her security package is foolproof and trumps all other factors, the fact remains that no ad hoc arrangement based on keeping a defendant in her private home under the watch of a security firm that she hired could be as secure as remand” … . Matter of State of NY ex rel. Fischetti v Brann, 2018 NY Slip Op 06220, First Dept 9-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/HABEAS CORPUS (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/BAIL  (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

,

NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the notice issued by two partners purporting to dissolve the partnership was a nullity because the notice did not comport with the relevant provisions of the partnership agreement:

On October 15, 2015, two of the partners issued a notice purporting to withdraw from and dissolve the partnerships, pursuant to New York Partnership Law § 62(1)(b), “which,” the notice said, “provides that a partnership is terminable at will on notice.” * * *

“New York's Partnership Law creates default provisions that fill gaps in partnership agreements, but where the agreement clearly states the means by which a partnership will dissolve, or other aspects of partnership dissolution, it is the agreement that governs the change in relations between partners and the future of the business” … . Where, as here, a partnership agreement contains provisions governing the dissolution of the partnership by the will of the partners, ordinary contract principles apply … , and a notice by a partner or partners to dissolve a partnership in contravention of the partnership agreement's dissolution provisions is a legal nullity and does not effect a dissolution of the partnership. Wiener v Weissman, 2018 NY Slip Op 06205, First Dept 9-26-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (PARTNERSHIP LAW, NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))

COLLEGE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED PH.D STUDENT’S LEARNING DISABILITY, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM UPON FAILURE OF AN EXAM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the college adequately addressed petitioner-Ph.D-student's learning disability and petitioner was properly terminated from the program after failing an exam:

The record establishes that respondents reasonably accommodated the known aspects of petitioner's learning disability by granting him, among other accommodations, double the amount of time (six hours) for a certification exam, with an additional hour for lunch to be used at his discretion. There is no record that respondents were ever apprised, until months after petitioner had twice unsuccessfully sat for the exam, that the resulting length of the test could exacerbate petitioner's disability through fatigue. Petitioner thus failed to meet his burden, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), of showing that the additional accommodations he sought (i.e., to take the exam home or split the six hours over two days) were facially reasonable… . Moreover, the record establishes that respondents met their duty, in advance of both administrations of the exam, to engage in an interactive dialogue with petitioner … .

Petitioner's claim for breach of implied contract also fails, as respondents' determination that petitioner did not pass the exam (and the resulting termination from the program) was rationally based in the record and, as an academic evaluation, is beyond further review … . Matter of De Jesus v Teachers Coll., 2018 NY Slip Op 06186, First Dept 9-25-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED PH.D STUDENT'S LEARNING DISABILITY, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM UPON FAILURE OF AN EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, COLLEGE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED PH.D STUDENT'S LEARNING DISABILITY, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM UPON FAILURE OF AN EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/LEARNING DISABILITIES (ACCOMMODATIONS, COLLEGE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED PH.D STUDENT'S LEARNING DISABILITY, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM UPON FAILURE OF AN EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/ACCOMMODATIONS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, COLLEGE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED PH.D STUDENT'S LEARNING DISABILITY, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM UPON FAILURE OF AN EXAM (FIRST DEPT))

OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES’ CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department found that the child maltreatment determination by the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) was not indicated:

OCFS's determination that child maltreatment by petitioners was “indicated” is not supported by substantial evidence… . Petitioners were in compliance with the recommendations of the child's pediatrician during the period in question, and there is no evidence that their failure to seek regular visits with a hematologist or to administer a daily dose of penicillin to the child as a prophylaxis either impaired or risked imminently impairing the child's physical condition… . Medical records show that the child's hospitalizations in 2014 and a year later in 2015 were the result of a viral infection, which would not have been prevented by his seeing a hematologist regularly or taking penicillin, an antibiotic. After the 2015 hospitalization, the child's treating physician ratified a course of treatment that did not include a daily antibiotic. Further, petitioners' decision not to further vaccinate the child did not violate the pediatrician's directive … . Matter of Charles v Poole, 2018 NY Slip Op 06185, First Dept 9-25-18

FAMILY LAW (OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES' CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/CHILD MALTREATMENT (OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES' CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES' CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))

,

2015 MOTION TO REINSTATE THE APPEAL OF A 1986 CONVICTION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant's appeal should be dismissed because more than 30 had passed between his conviction and the motion to reinstate the appeal. The defendant had absconded from his 1986 trial and then served a long sentence in North Carolina:

In 1984 defendant absconded during trial, and was tried and convicted in absentia. His attorney filed a notice of appeal, but defendant did nothing to perfect his appeal, which was dismissed in 1998, on the People's motion, for failure to prosecute.

Meanwhile, in 1986, defendant was convicted of serious charges in North Carolina, and he served a lengthy sentence there. Commencing in 2003, nearly 20 years after his conviction, when the New York Department of Correctional Services lodged a detainer in North Carolina based on the instant conviction, defendant filed various pro se motions in connection with his New York conviction. However, defendant did not move to reinstate his appeal until 2015, more than 30 years after his 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 an absconding defendant's appeal remains pending for a long time, whether the appeal should be ultimately be permitted to proceed is “subject to the broad discretion of the Appellate Division” … . In exercising its discretion, this Court 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 … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 06182, First Dept 9-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, 2015 MOTION TO REINSTATE THE APPEAL OF A 1986 CONVICTION DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, 2015 MOTION TO REINSTATE THE APPEAL OF A 1986 CONVICTION DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICE WAS PRESENT ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether ice was present on the sidewalk in this slip and fall case:

Moreover, the parties sharply dispute whether there was an accumulation of old ice in the area of the accident. Defendants presented testimony from their superintendent that he did not see anything out of the ordinary regarding the condition of the sidewalk, and testimony from an expert meteorologist that the ground was bare of snow and that ice could not have formed naturally from the meteorological conditions. In addition, defendants submitted photographs, however they do not clearly show whether or not there was ice in the sidewalk crack. In contrast, plaintiff testified that there was “dirty” ice on the sidewalk which caused her to fall, and submitted public meteorological records showing that there had been a significant snowfall 12 days before and intermittent freezing temperatures since that date. In light of this factual dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Furthermore, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendants' superintendent testified that building porters inspected the sidewalk each morning, but failed to provide any specific testimony regarding the inspection on the accident date. Defendants' superintendent also could not recall whether there was ice on the ground, even though he examined the area after the incident. Plaintiff's testimony about “dirty” ice creates a triable issue of fact because it indicates that the icy condition had existed for some time … . The storm in progress doctrine has no application to this case because plaintiff does not allege that the storm on the accident date caused the dangerous condition … . ​Adario-Caine v 69th Tenants Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06180, First Dept 9-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICE WAS PRESENT ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICE WAS PRESENT ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICE WAS PRESENT ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICE WAS PRESENT ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLANTIFF’S FALL, HEIGHT WAS BELOW THAT MANDATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The plaintiff presented evidence that the proximate cause of his stairway fall over the guardrail was the inadequate height of the guardrail:

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact by submitting an affidavit by an expert engineer who averred that the stairwell violated National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) No. 101. NFPA No. 101, which was listed in the “Generally Accepted Standards Applicable to the State Building Construction Code” in effect at the time of the hotel's construction, advocated the construction of a 42-inch-high guardrail along the stairwell. The record shows that the existing guardrail was no more than 32 inches high. A violation of NFPA No. 101, which was “applicable by reference in the [State] Building Construction Code – not incorporation – would constitute some evidence of negligence and may establish a standard of care” … . …

Defendants failed to establish prima facie that they did not have constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition. They argue that the stairwell complied with applicable building codes and that they never received any violations regarding the stairwell. However, their claimed compliance with applicable building codes is not dispositive of whether they breached their common-law duty of care … . Moreover, the existence of a guardrail less than 42 inches high, although not in violation of a particular mandatory code, was obvious and had existed for a sufficient time for defendants to discover and remedy it. Contrary to defendants' argument, plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of his slip or trip on the stairs, which made him lose his balance and go over the rail, is not fatal to his claims, given the evidence supporting his contention that the proximate cause of his … injuries was the lack of a 42-inch guardrail. In any event, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Sussman v MK LCP Rye LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06143, First Dept 9-19-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLANTIFF'S FALL, HEIGHT WAS BELOW THAT MANDATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, STAIRWELL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLANTIFF'S FALL, HEIGHT WAS BELOW THAT MANDATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( STAIRWELL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLANTIFF'S FALL, HEIGHT WAS BELOW THAT MANDATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (FIRST DEPT))GUARDRAILS (STAIRWELL, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLANTIFF'S FALL, HEIGHT WAS BELOW THAT MANDATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh too complex to fairly summarize here, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary to the contract, despite the boilerplate exclusion of third-party beneficiaries:

…[W]e reject defendant's contention that plaintiff does not have standing to sue for breach of the [agreement] because it is not a party to that agreement. Plaintiff is an intended third-party beneficiary of the [agreement], as that agreement explicitly refers to plaintiff and grants it enforceable rights. Accordingly, the [agreement's] boilerplate exclusion of third-party beneficiaries does not apply to plaintiff, and this action may not be properly dismissed for lack of standing … . MPEG LA, LLC v Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 06147, First Dept 9-19-18 

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (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