You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED BY COUNSEL OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been summarily granted and remanded the matter for a hearing. The defendant alleged defense counsel was ineffective for failure to correctly inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The First Department offered a detailed explanation of the three criteria for granting a motion to vacate in this context on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.

CPL 440.30 authorizes the summary granting of a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction where the moving papers allege a ground constituting a legal basis for the motion (CPL 440.30[3][a]); where that ground, if factually based, is supported by sworn allegations of fact essential to support the motion (CPL 440.30[3][b]); and where the sworn allegations of essential fact are either conceded by the People to be true or are conclusively substantiated by unquestionable documentary proof (CPL 440.30[3][c]). If all three of these statutory criteria are not met, the court may not grant a CPL 440.10 motion without first conducting a hearing (CPL 440.30[5]). …

… [T]he People did not concede the essential factual allegations on the issue of prejudice. Indeed, they expressly noted that defendant’s allegations of longstanding ties to the United States and lack of any connection to Haiti were entirely unsubstantiated. Neither did defendant proffer documentary proof conclusively substantiating his sworn factual allegations in support of his claim that “but for [his plea] counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … . …Thus, defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion failed to satisfy the third criterion of CPL 440.30(3), and for that reason, the motion court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without first conducting a hearing and making findings of fact … . People v Gaston, 2018 NY Slip Op 05122, First Dept 7-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the individual defendants, officers or employees of the corporate defendant, are entitled to enforce the arbitration provision of the contract, even though they were not signatories:

The individual defendants, who were officers or employees of [defendant corporation] and did not sign the [agreement] in their individual capacities, are nevertheless entitled to enforce the arbitration provision, because any breach of the [agreement] would have to be the result of an action or inaction attributable to them. A rule allowing corporate officers and employees to enforce arbitration agreements entered into by the corporate principal “is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement” … . Further, even a nonsignatory may be estopped from avoiding arbitration where he knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement with an arbitration clause … . Huntsman Intl. LLC v Albemarle Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04962, First Dept 7-3-18

​CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/ARBITRATION (CORPORATION LAW, CONTRACT LAW, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, ARBITRATION, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))

ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3O2 (a)(3)(ii) stems from tortious acts which occur in New York, not financial effects felt in New York, and due process requires that an out-of-state defendant have minimum contacts with New York. Neither requirement was met here:

A plaintiff relying on CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) must show that (1) the defendant committed a tortious act outside New York; (2) the cause of action arose from that act; (3) the tortious act caused an injury to a person or property in New York; (4) the defendant expected or should reasonably have expected the act to have consequences in New York; and (5) the defendant derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce … . In New York, “the situs of commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred” … .

Here, the “original critical events” giving rise to plaintiff’s injury were the 2012 and 2015 Transfers. As those transfers occurred outside of New York and did not involve New York assets, the situs of injury was not in New York… . That plaintiff felt economic injury in New York, alone, is an insufficient basis to confer jurisdiction. …

Furthermore, even if the elements of CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) have been met, asserting personal jurisdiction would not comport with due process … . To comport with due process, “[t]here must also be proof that the out-of-state defendant has the requisite minimum contacts’ with the forum state and that the prospect of defending a suit here comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,'” … . The “minimum contacts” requirement is satisfied where “a defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State’ are such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there'” … . Under the “effects test” theory of personal jurisdiction, where the conduct that forms the basis for the plaintiff’s claims takes place entirely out of forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are the harmful effects suffered by the plaintiff, a court must inquire whether the defendant “expressly aimed” its conduct at the forum … . Here, defendants did not expressly aim their tortious conduct at New York, and the foreseeability that the alleged fraudulent conveyances would injure plaintiff in New York is insufficient … . Deutsche Bank AG v Vik, 2018 NY Slip Op 04958, First Dept 7-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 302  (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/PERSONAL JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CPLR 302, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/TORTIOUS ACTS (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/MINIMUM CONTACTS  (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/DUE PROCESS (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))

,

THE CONTROLLING STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE CITY CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO TREES, THE REGULATION WHICH PURPORTS TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT DECLARED INVALID (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff city was not authorized to sue defendant for money damages for defendant’s alleged injury to tress during sidewalk repair. Although a regulation allowed the suit, the controlling statute did not. The regulation was declared invalid:

The motion court erred in ruling that the City has the capacity to sue for the negligent destruction of its property. A municipality does not have a common-law right to bring suit; its right to sue, if any, “must be derived from the relevant enabling legislation or some other concrete statutory predicate” … . Rules of City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) (56 RCNY) § 5-01(c) permits DPR to “seek damages” against persons who “cut, remove, or destroy” its trees without a permit … . However, the relevant enabling legislation, which authorizes DPR to promulgate rules regarding the cutting, removal, and destruction of its trees, does not authorize a municipal right of action to recover money damages for injury to the trees (see New York City Charter § 533[a][9]; Administrative Code of the City of New York § 18-107[e]). 56 RCNY 5-01(c) is therefore “out of harmony” with the statute, and we hold that it is invalid … . City of New York v Tri-Rail Constr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04954, First Dept 7-3-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE CONTROLLING STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE CITY CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO TREES, THE REGULATION WHICH PURPORTS TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT DECLARED INVALID (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, THE CONTROLLING STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE CITY CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO TREES, THE REGULATION WHICH PURPORTS TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT DECLARED INVALID (FIRST DEPT))/TREES (MUNICIPAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  THE CONTROLLING STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE CITY CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO TREES, THE REGULATION WHICH PURPORTS TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT DECLARED INVALID (FIRST DEPT))

,

SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the seizure of credit cards from under the hood of defendant’s car was not the result of an illegal search. The police had validly impounded the car and were following a procedure which required that the car be disabled to thwart theft:

Police entry into the car and under its hood was reasonable because it was done in compliance with the Police Department Patrol Guide’s safeguarding procedure, requiring police to disable all vehicles being safeguarded, in order to prevent theft. The limited entry into the car was done to protect the owner’s property, and was not an attempt to search for incriminating evidence, as shown by the fact that, upon discovering the credit cards in the hood, the police did not search any other part of the vehicle … . The officers’ failure to perform this safeguarding procedure within the 48-hour period allowed by the Patrol Guide, after which a vehicle is to be moved from the precinct to the Property Clerk’s storage facility, was a minor deviation from procedure, and did not undermine the reasonableness of the limited search, where the remainder of the procedure was followed and, as noted, there was no indication that the police were using the procedure as a pretext to search for incriminating evidence … . People v Keita, 2018 NY Slip Op 04847, First Dept 6-28-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT)

, ,

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))

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