You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

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))

,

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))

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