You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a detailed, comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined that a purported oral agreement to sell works of art by Peter Beard was barred by the statute of frauds. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the causes of action for declaration, conversion and replevin was properly granted. Plaintiff Peter Beard was properly declared to be the sole owner of the art works. The dissent includes a detailed rendition of the facts which is not summarized here:

The motion court correctly found that the works of art at issue were goods, and thus that the purported oral agreement to sell them was barred by the statute of frauds (see UCC 2-201…). Defendants’ wire transfers to a third party, who then purportedly remitted the funds to plaintiffs, were not unequivocally referable to the agreement alleged, such as to deem the agreement partially completed and outside the statute of frauds … . Alternative explanations, including that the funds were for financing other projects involving the third party, defeat such claims … . Beard v Chase, 2018 NY Slip Op 04636, First Dept 6-21-18

​CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACTS (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL CONTRACT, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/ART WORKS (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/UCC  (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff in this slip and fall case because the defendant store did not preserve video which would have shown the condition of the floor prior to the fall:

Although it was demanded within days of plaintiff’s slip and fall, defendants failed to preserve a video recording of its store that depicted the area of plaintiff’s fall prior to it occurring. Instead, a store employee selectively edited the video to retain only that portion showing approximately 30 seconds prior to plaintiff’s fall and the fall itself. Without the video recording, plaintiff may be unable to establish the origin of the liquid on the floor that she claims caused her to fall, and thus be unable to establish the requisite notice of the alleged condition … . Despite a court order and a discovery conference stipulation, defendants failed to explain why the remainder of the video became unavailable. Davis v Pathmark, 2018 NY Slip Op 04656, First Dept 6-21-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SPOLIATION,  FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/SPOLIATION (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/VIDEO (EVIDENCE, SPOLIATION, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO, SPOLIATION, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER ALLEGING FRAUDULENT AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CONCERNING THE ADVERTISING OF BROADBAND SPEEDS AND ACCESS TO ONLINE CONTENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the civil enforcement complaint stated causes of action under the Executive Law and the General Business Law for fraudulent practices in advertising Internet speeds and reliable access to online content:

Defendants make official disclosures about broadband speeds (actual speeds measured according to a testing protocol on the modems of consumers deemed representative) in accordance with the federal rule [Transparency Rule, 47 CFR 8.3]. The complaint alleges that defendants’ use of their official disclosures in consumer advertisements is misleading, because other statements in the advertisements give consumers the false impression that the disclosed speeds represent speeds that consumers can expect to experience on their devices, including wireless devices, consistently … . The Transparency Rule does not preempt state laws “that prevent fraud, deception and false advertising” … .

The court correctly determined that the complaint’s allegations about the advertisements’ representations of speeds “up to” a certain level state a cause of action … . Issues of fact exist as to whether defendants delivered the advertised speed levels consistently.

The court correctly declined to dismiss claims based on allegations about network quality and reliability on the ground that some of the language in the advertisements is mere puffery, because other statements in the advertisements are not mere puffery and are actionable … . People v Charter Communications, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04644, First Dept 6-21-18

​CONSUMER LAW (INTERNET, CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER ALLEGING FRAUDULENT AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CONCERNING THE ADVERTISING OF BROADBAND SPEEDS AND ACCESS TO ONLINE CONTENT (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD  (INTERNET, CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER ALLEGING FRAUDULENT AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CONCERNING THE ADVERTISING OF BROADBAND SPEEDS AND ACCESS TO ONLINE CONTENT (FIRST DEPT))/ADVERTISING (CONSUMER LAW, INTERNET,  CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER ALLEGING FRAUDULENT AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CONCERNING THE ADVERTISING OF BROADBAND SPEEDS AND ACCESS TO ONLINE CONTENT (FIRST DEPT))/INTERNET (CONSUMER LAW, CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER ALLEGING FRAUDULENT AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CONCERNING THE ADVERTISING OF BROADBAND SPEEDS AND ACCESS TO ONLINE CONTENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTION (INTERNET, CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER ALLEGING FRAUDULENT AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES CONCERNING THE ADVERTISING OF BROADBAND SPEEDS AND ACCESS TO ONLINE CONTENT (FIRST DEPT))

,

EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant buyer failed to demonstrate the seller was not ready, willing and able to close on the time-of-the-essence date. The seller was entitled to keep the deposit. The buyer claimed that an easement-covenant addressing a three inch encroachment was an encumbrance which violated the purchase agreement. The court held that the encroachment was a “permitted exception” under the purchase agreement:

… [B]uyer claimed that seller had not been ready, willing, and able to close because the property had an easement-covenant that had not been removed and therefore seller’s representation in the contract that there would be no encumbrances on the property at closing was untrue. The easement-covenant, which allowed the subject property to encroach three inches onto neighboring property, was disclosed in a title report issued eight months prior to the scheduled closing. …

… [D]efendant buyer failed to demonstrate that it had a lawful basis for refusing to close since the easement-covenant, which benefitted the property and was evident in the title survey, was a “permitted exception” as defined in schedule 1.21 of the contract for sale. Thus, buyer materially breached the contract when it failed to appear on the time-is-of-the-essence closing date, and, under the limited amendment to the Contract of Sale, seller is entitled to retain the deposit as liquidated damages …  Pursuant to the contract, plaintiff seller is also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees for both the proceedings before Supreme Court and this Court, to be determined, as directed by the court, by a referee. 45 Renwick St., LLC v Lionbridge, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04641, First Dept 6-21-18

​REAL ESTATE (EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/EASEMENTS (EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/TIME OF THE ESSENCE (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/PURCHASE CONTRACT (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/PERMITTED EXCEPTION (REAL ESTATE, PURCHASE CONTRACT, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/TIME OF THE ESSENCE (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITY DEPOSIT (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES  (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s decedent’s recklessness was the sole legal cause of her death. During Superstorm Sandy plaintiff’s decedent went outside, barefoot, to photograph downed power lines and was electrocuted:

The decedent was killed during Superstorm Sandy when she twice ventured outside her home to photograph downed power lines, and was electrocuted when one of the lines came in contact with her ankle. Her friend, who witnessed the incident, provided statements attesting to the fact that decedent left her home to investigate whether there was a fire, was shocked when she touched a metal gate in her front yard, returned to her home, and then exited the house again, barefoot this time, in order to photograph the scene. Decedent’s friend stated that he warned her repeatedly to stay away from the live wires and to get back inside, but she disregarded his warnings.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since decedent’s recklessness in approaching live power wires in the midst of a major storm in order to take photographs was the sole legal cause of her death… . Plaintiffs contend that defendants were negligent in failing to properly maintain the power wires, adequately prepare for the storm, and respond rapidly enough to the notice of the emergency situation resulting from the downed wires. However, even if defendants were negligent, decedent’s recklessness was a superseding cause of her death … . Abraham v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04517, First Dept 6-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/UTILITIES  (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESSNESS (NEGLIGENCE, SOLE LEGAL CAUSE, ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/SOLE LEGAL CAUSE  (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/SUPERSEDING CAUSE  (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))

ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff tripped over a yellow plastic chain lying on the ground. Because plaintiff need not show freedom from comparative fault, the allegation that the chain was open and obvious did not preclude summary judgment:

… [P]laintiff was not required to demonstrate his own freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment as to defendant’s liability (see Rodriguez v City of New York, ___ NY3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op 02287 [2018]). For this reason, we also reject defendant’s argument that the chain on which plaintiff tripped was open and obvious, since that issue too is relevant to comparative fault and does not preclude summary resolution of the issue of defendant’s liability … . Derix v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 04507, First Dept 6-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Education Law and Public Health Law did not prohibit the release of the identities of persons who participated in a quality assurance review involving plaintiff doctor:

Plaintiffs’ claims in this suit are based on [Peconic Bay Medical Center’s] alleged misrepresentations about the existence of an investigation and the filing of an AAR [adverse action report], and the AAR did not report plaintiff for malpractice but for resigning during an ongoing investigation … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs’ request to compel defendants to un-redact the identities of nonparty participants in the quality assurance review process should be granted. Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m protect documents “prepared by or at the behest of” a quality assurance committee … . However, they do not protect the mere identities of participants. Brook v Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04432, First Dept 6-14-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) action stemming from a fall from an A frame ladder. Plaintiff was engaged in “alteration” within the meaning of the statute. The fact that plaintiff was the sole witness to the action did not preclude summary judgment. The fact that plaintiff may have been comparatively negligent did not preclude summary judgment:

Partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly granted in favor of plaintiff in this action where plaintiff was injured when he fell from a six-foot A-frame ladder while performing work on the sprinkler system in defendant’s building … . According to plaintiff, as he was tightening a bolt, the ladder moved and he fell to the floor. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record shows that the work that plaintiff was engaged in at the time of his accident constituted an alteration within the meaning of section 240(1). Such work included reconfiguring the premises’ sprinkler system to comply with the fire code and entailed, inter alia, cutting and removing pipes, relocating pipes and valves, and installing components … .

That plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident does not preclude summary judgment in his favor where nothing in the record contradicts his account or raises an issue of fact as to his credibility … . Furthermore, any failure on plaintiff’s part to ensure that his coworker had properly set up the ladder would, at most, constitute comparative negligence, a defense inapplicable to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … . Concepcion v 333 Seventh LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04422, First Dept 6-14-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))/ALTERATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A RELEASE WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE CASE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL AND SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly considered a release that defendant had signed after the matter had been reversed on appeal and before the case was heard on remittal:

While Supreme Court is powerless to change a remittitur from this Court, “nevertheless, in order to avoid an obviously unjust result it may mold its procedure and adapt its relief to the exigencies of any new facts or conditions which were not before the [appellate court] when it made its original determination and entered its remittitur”… . Here, the release is a “new fact” that was not considered by this Court, and Supreme Court properly determined that it would be unjust to ignore its existence and proceed with the litigation. Gramercy Park Residence Corp. v Ellman, 2018 NY Slip Op 04424, First Dept 6-14-18

APPEALS SUPREME (COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A RELEASE WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE CASE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL AND SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT))/REMITTITUR (APPEALS, COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A RELEASE WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE CASE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL AND SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT))

,

BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the driver of a bus, Garcia, was not liable for suddenly applying the brakes pursuant to the emergency doctrine. A taxi had suddenly swerved into the bus’s lane:

The motion court properly invoked the emergency doctrine in finding that no issues of fact exist as to defendants’ negligence given plaintiff’s failure in opposition to adduce any evidence tending to show that the bus operator, defendant Garcia, created the emergency or could have avoided a collision with the nonparty livery taxi by taking some action other than applying his brakes … . The sudden unexpected swerving of the livery taxi into the bus’s lane required Garcia to take immediate action … . Garcia’s reaction of pressing the brakes with enough force to prevent an impact between his bus and the taxi and swerving the bus to the right was a reasonable response to the emergency that was not of his own making … . That Garcia was aware that taxis often cut buses off does not require a different result. Jones v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04281, First Dept 6-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (BUSES, BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (BUSES, (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/BRAKES (BUSES, BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (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