You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff in this whistleblower action was entitled to discover medical records protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Public Health Law (PHL). Plaintiff alleged he was fired, in violation Labor Law 740, in retaliation for complaining that defendant’s employees procured organs without performing tests and from people who still showed signs of life:

The records concerning these four individuals are material and necessary to plaintiff’s claim (see CPLR 3101[a]). To prevail on a claim for retaliatory termination in violation of Labor Law § 740(2), plaintiff must prove that he was fired because he objected to or threatened to disclose a practice that was in violation of a law or regulation … . The subject medical records will allegedly show that defendant pressured doctors to declare people dead in violation of regulations regarding the making of such determinations … .

… [B]ecause the subject disclosure would be made in the course of a judicial proceeding and pursuant to a qualified protective order, it is authorized under HIPAA… .

… PHL § 4351(8) renders defendant’s documents subject to the protections of the physician-patient privilege set forth at CPLR 4504. This privilege is personal to the patient and is not terminated by death … . It has not been expressly or implicitly waived in this case by the donors’ next of kin … . However, plaintiff demonstrated that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to his claim and that “the circumstances warrant overcoming the privilege and permitting discovery of the records with all identifying patient information appropriately redacted to protect patient confidentiality” … . Allowing disclosure under these circumstances is consistent with the public policy underlying the whistleblower statute, i.e., to encourage employees to report hazards to supervisors and the public … . McMahon v New York Organ Donor Network, 2018 NY Slip Op 03820, First Dept 5-29-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (WHISTLEBLOWERS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, MEDICAL RECORDS,  PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/HIPAA (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWERS  (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/ORGAN TRANSPLANTS  (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))

,

COURT DID NOT CONDUCT SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the court’s inquiry into defendant’s request to proceed pro se was inadequate:

The knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel by a defendant who seeks to proceed pro se requires a “searching inquiry” in which the court must communicate to the defendant both the “risks inherent in proceeding pro se” and “the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . Neither a defendant’s expression of a strong desire to proceed pro se, nor elicitation of information demonstrating the defendant might be relatively capable of doing so, is a substitute for the two above-cited essential components of a searching inquiry, which were all but completely absent here. The relevant portion of the trial court’s colloquy with defendant on this subject was essentially limited to warning him that self-representation was a “big mistake” and that the court had seen many pro se defendants convicted after trial.

Even when the record is viewed as a whole, the required inquiry does not appear. Defendant had made several requests for self-representation before a calendar court. However, in each instance the court denied the request on the basis of its initial inquiry about defendant’s understanding of the charges, without reaching the stage of the required pro se inquiry at issue on appeal. People v Herbin, 2018 NY Slip Op 03811, First Dept 5-29-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) defendant’s conviction of robbery second, determined Supreme Court should have submitted robbery third to the jury as a lesser included offense. But because the People agreed that the conviction could be reduced to robbery third a new trial was not necessary:

There was a reasonable view of the evidence supporting defendant’s request for submission of third-degree robbery as a lesser included offense, and we have considered and rejected the People’s argument that the issue is unpreserved. The appropriate remedy for this type of error would normally be a new trial. However, the People’s concession that, if we reach this error, the conviction should be reduced to third-degree robbery renders a new trial unnecessary because the modification provides defendant with a greater remedy than he would have received had the trial court submitted that charge to the jury … . People v Cabassa, 2018 NY Slip Op 03810, First Dept 5-29-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT))

DATE OF WOMAN’S DISAPPEARANCE, NOT THE STATUTORY DEFAULT DATE FIVE YEARS LATER, WAS THE CORRECT DATE OF DEATH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the date of the disappearance of Kathleen (January 31, 1982) , not the statutory default date (January 31, 1987) was the date of the Kathleen’s death:

Petitioner submitted evidence that Kathleen disappeared without explanation, and without her car and personal effects, on January 31, 1982. Kathleen has not been seen or heard from since that date. Kathleen’s sisters submit affidavits in which they recite that they were close with her, and communicated with her several times a month, prior to her disappearance. They state that it is inconceivable that Kathleen would abruptly cease all communication with family and friends. Kathleen was also a medical student at Mt. Sinai Medical School at the time of her disappearance. She was two months away from graduation. According to her family it was Kathleen’s dream to become a doctor and it would be incomprehensible that she would walk away from her studies when she was so close to her goal. Respondent … has not submitted an affidavit refuting or explaining this evidence.

We find that this evidence is sufficient to establish a “high[] probab[ility]” that Kathleen died on the date of her disappearance … . Matter of McCormack, 2018 NY Slip Op 03733, First Dept 5-24-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DATE OF WOMAN’S DISAPPEARANCE, NOT THE STATUTORY DEFAULT DATE FIVE YEARS LATER, WAS THE CORRECT DATE OF DEATH (FIRST DEPT))/DISAPPEARANCE (DATE OF WOMAN’S DISAPPEARANCE, NOT THE STATUTORY DEFAULT DATE FIVE YEARS LATER, WAS THE CORRECT DATE OF DEATH (FIRST DEPT))/DEATH, DATE OF  (DATE OF WOMAN’S DISAPPEARANCE, NOT THE STATUTORY DEFAULT DATE FIVE YEARS LATER, WAS THE CORRECT DATE OF DEATH (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an issue of fact whether the defendant property owner had constructive notice of inconsistently worn and slippery steps precluded the award of summary judgment to the defendant. The First Department also found that the cause of the fall was sufficiently identified by plaintiff’s expert opinion, despite the difficulty in discerning the defect from the photographs:

Plaintiff identified the cause of his fall on stairs in a building owned and managed by defendants sufficiently to withstand summary judgment. He was not required to identify at the time of the accident “exactly where [he] fell and the precise condition that caused [him] to fall” … . He identified the location of his fall at his deposition. Plaintiff also explained that it was the “concave” shape of the steps that caused him to slip. This testimony was corroborated by plaintiff’s expert, who opined that the stairs were dangerously slippery and were disproportionately worn in the middle, creating an unsafe “inward sloping condition” … . Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was properly considered, although it was not timely disclosed, since there was no showing of prejudice to defendants … .

Plaintiff’s evidence of the cause of his fall is also sufficient to raise issues of fact as to the existence of a defective condition. While it is difficult to discern a concave or sloping condition in the photographs in the record, the photographs are not sufficiently clear to be conclusive.

The record also presents issues of fact as to defendants’ notice of the alleged defects. Inconsistently worn and slippery steps are not latent defects and do not appear overnight. In addition, defendants submitted evidence showing that they had an opportunity to observe the defects. The building superintendent informally inspected the stairs at least three times a week during cleaning. Thus, if the defects are found to exist, it will be reasonable to infer that defendants had constructive notice of them … . Johnson v 675 Coster St. Hous. Dev. Fund, 2018 NY Slip Op 03756, First Dept 5-24-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/ CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRWAY (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))

CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined conflicting evidence about the presence of liquid on a stairway precluded summary judgment in this slip and fall case:

Plaintiff testified that on the day of the accident (Thanksgiving) she took the stairs down from the third floor and they were dry. This was sometime between 11:30am and noon that day. When she returned some twenty minutes later, sometime between 11:50 a.m. and 12:20 p.m., plaintiff walked up the same flight of stairs. On her way up, she noticed there was some liquid or water on the steps and she sidestepped the puddle. Later that day, at 3 p.m., plaintiff took the same flight of stairs a third time, this time with her son. Plaintiff testified that as she walked down the stairs at 3 p.m. she slipped and fell. Her testimony is that she slipped on water or some liquid substance that had no smell and that it was in the same location on the stairs where she had previously observed a puddle earlier that afternoon.

Defendant denies that it had actual notice of the condition alleged. Defendant’s building caretaker testified that she inspected the staircase twice that day, following an established schedule. Her first inspection was at approximately 8:20 a.m. and her second inspection was at 12:30 p.m.. The caretaker denied having seen any liquid or water on the steps either time and defendant also contends no one made any complaints about a wet condition on the stairs that day.

The conflicting testimony as to whether or not there was water on the steps at the time the caretaker’s second inspection implicates issues of credibility. If, as plaintiff claims, there was water on the steps at or shortly before 12:30 p.m., when the caretaker did her second inspection, then defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that a dangerous condition existed but, nevertheless, failed to remedy the situation … . The evidence submitted by defendant was not sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that defendant did not have actual notice of the allegedly hazardous condition prior to plaintiff’s fall … . Capers v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03749, First Dept 5-24-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/ACTUAL NOTICE  (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRWAY (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))

BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell on a crack in the stairway. A 2012 building inspection report stated that the stairway needed repair. And the defendant submitted only the building’s general cleaning routine:

The record shows that defendant failed to demonstrate that it lacked actual notice of the stairway defect, since an April 2012 building inspection report states that the property’s ramps, steps and railing required repair. Defendant also failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged defect, because it submitted evidence only as to the building’s general cleaning routine, and failed to show when the stairway had last been inspected prior to the accident … .

In light of defendant’s failure to meet its initial burden to establish that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the defective condition of the stairway, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to establish how long the condition was in existence … . Javier v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03736, First Dept 5-24-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/ACTUAL NOTICE (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRWAY (SLIP AND FALL, BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))

ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed because the accident, tripping over a pile of sand on ground level, did not involve an elevation-related risk. The Labor Law 241 (6) and 200 causes of  action should have been dismissed because the defendants (subcontractors USRC and A-Deck) did not exercise control over the plaintiff, the area or the work:

… [T]he Labor Law § 241(6) claim should be dismissed because neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Labor Law § 241(6) does not automatically apply to all subcontractors on a site or in the chain of command'” … . “Rather, for liability under the statute to attach to a defendant, a plaintiff must show that the defendant exercised control either over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to the injury” … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck exercised any control over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to plaintiff’s injury.

The Labor Law § 200 claim should also be dismissed as neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workmen with a safe place to work” … . “An implicit precondition to this duty to provide a safe place to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition”  … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck had the authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury. Adagio v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03744,  First Dept 5-24-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SUBCONTRACTORS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the case, which was affected by a 2017 Court of Appeals decision, needed to be sent back for more fact-finding.  The Court of Appeals case, Carlson v American Intl. Group, Inc. (30 NY3d 288 [2017]), held that the timely disclaimer provisions of New York Insurance Law 3240 (d)(2) applied to insureds located in New York, which was defined to include insureds with a “substantial business presence” in New York.

Everest [the insurer successfully argued in Supreme Court that] it had no duty to defend or indemnify because section 3240(d)(2) applies only to insurance policies “issued or delivered” in New York. Everest argued that it is a New Jersey insurer and that it issued the policy to East Coast, a New Jersey company, and that therefore the policy was not “issued or delivered” in New York. …

Supreme Court, relying upon Carlson v American Intl. Group., Inc., (130 AD3d 1477 [4th Dept 2015]) [reversed by the Court of Appeals], … granted Everest’s cross motion, holding that because the policy was issued and delivered outside of New York State, the timeliness requirements of § 3240(d)(2) did not apply. …

… [T]he first prong of [the Court of Appeals decision in] Carlson was satisfied in this case. The risks covered under the Everest policy include the Queensboro Plaza project, which is located in New York State. However, we find that the record is not sufficiently developed for us to decide whether East Coast [the insured company] had a substantial business presence in New York under the Court of Appeals’ decision in Carlson. * * *

Because the Carlson Court did not set forth a specific definition of substantial business presence, and because the record is insufficiently developed concerning East Coast’s business presence in New York, we remand to allow the parties to develop the record and give Supreme Court an opportunity to meaningfully review the case in light of Carlson. Vista Eng’g Corp. v Everest Indem. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03730, First Dept 5-24-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE CASE INVOLVES A  NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, THE CASE INVOLVES A  NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress items taken from his person should have been granted because the sequence of events which would have legitimized the search was not proven at the hearing:

… [W]e agree with the People that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on the detective’s report that he saw a possible drug transaction in which a Hispanic man later identified as defendant, who was wearing a black leather jacket, handed a bag containing two small white objects to another man before walking away, in close temporal and spatial proximity to defendant’s apprehension … . However, this information did not establish probable cause to arrest and search defendant. The detective did not testify that he observed anything that appeared to be money being exchanged or handled by either of the two men, that there was anything furtive about their behavior aside from the sheer brevity of their encounter, or that the area was particularly drug prone … .

When the detective recovered a bag containing drugs after the apparent buyer discarded it, this clearly raised the level of suspicion to probable cause. However, the nontestifying officers had detained defendant based only on the information known at the time of the initial radioed report. The People’s assertion that the search occurred after the testifying detective made a confirmatory identification of defendant is unsupported by the record. In fact, the detective could not specify when the search occurred, or when he learned about it, and the People did not call any witnesses to testify about the nature and timing of the search based on personal knowledge. People v Ayarde, 2018 NY Slip Op 03750, First Dept 5-24-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP, SEARCH, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/STREET STOPS (SEARCH, SEARCH, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (STREET STOPS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (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