You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defense counsel was not ineffective for turning down the court’s offer to instruct the jury that it need not adhere to the “acquit-first” rule. The jury had sent out two notes indicating deadlock on the top count (murder):

Defendant also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to accept the court’s offer, prompted by the prosecutor’s suggestion, to deviate from the “acquit-first” rule … , and allow the jury, which had submitted two deadlock notes as to the top charge of murder in the second degree, to consider the lesser included count of manslaughter in the first degree without first reaching a not guilty verdict on the higher charge. We need not decide whether, as the People argue, counsel’s choice categorically cannot be deemed professionally unreasonable because the procedure the court made available was clearly contrary to New York law. Rather, we find that the choice counsel faced was quintessentially a judgment call, involving a significant measure of instinct and intuition, and therefore that the course chosen cannot be deemed to lack any objectively reasonable strategic basis. For example, counsel could reasonably have believed, as the court indicated it did, that there was some possibility of acquittal on all counts if the course of deliberations was not interrupted by an instruction authorizing departure from the acquit-first rule. In any event, defendant has likewise failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal standard. People v Tineo-Santos, 2018 NY Slip Op 02425, First Dept 4-10-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, ACQUIT FIRST RULE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ACQUIT FIRST RULE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (ACQUIT FIRST RULE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/ACQUIT FIRST RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUIT FIRST RULE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT))

,

CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, determined the City of New York’s Living in Communities (LINC) Program, designed to move homeless persons into apartments, violated the Urstadt Law, which prohibits the expansion (by a city) of rent controls to buildings beyond those subject to controls at the time the law was enacted (1971):

The “Urstadt Law was intended to check City attempts, whether by local law or regulation, to expand the set of buildings subject to rent control or stabilization, and particularly to do so in the teeth of State enactments aimed at achieving the opposite effect” … . * * *

Where the LINC Program runs afoul of the Urstadt Law … is in its use of mandatory riders that compel a landlord to renew a lease for up to five years at a minimum increase specifically tied to other City rent regulatory programs to which the housing unit is not presently subject. The application of Local Law 10 to compel acceptance of LINC Program rent vouchers as presently structured effectively expands the number of buildings subject to City control by imposing on those housing units a more stringent control than presently exists. This creates exactly the situation which the Urstadt Law forbids … . In determining whether a local law imposes more stringent or restrictive control over a housing unit than presently existed, the “substance rather than the form of the local law is determinative”… . Here, the effect of the LINC lease riders clearly and improperly expands City regulatory control to housing units not presently subject to that control. Alston v Starrett City, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02420, First Dept 4-5-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (RENT CONTROL, CITY OF NEW YORK, PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT))/RENT CONTROL (URSTADT LAW, CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT))/LINC PROGRAM  (LANDLORD-TENANT, CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT))/URSTADT LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT))

,

HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motions should have been granted because the hearsay in an accident report was not admissible:

… [A]lthough the report’s author had a business duty to prepare the report, the statement in the report that the platform “must have been moved during demolition and trench work . . . [by defendant]” indicated that he did not have first hand knowledge of the occurrence and was relying on speculative statements made by others, who are not identified. Nor is there any indication that this inference was based on first hand knowledge of a third party who was under a business duty to inform the author (…CPLR 4518). The business records exception to the hearsay rule does not permit the receipt into evidence of entries based upon voluntary hearsay statements made by third parties not engaged in the business or under a duty in relation thereto … . 76th & Broadway Owner LLC v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02409, First Dept 4-5-18

​EVIDENCE (HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (ACCIDENT REPORTS, HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS  (HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the failure to instruct the jury witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law requiring corroboration of their testimony was reversible error, and defense counsel’s failure to request the instruction constituted ineffective assistance:

We conclude that the lack of an accomplice corroboration charge (see CPL 60.22) warrants a new trial, and we reach this unpreserved issue in the interest of justice. The People’s case against defendant was based almost entirely on the testimony of three witnesses, each of whom was either an accomplice as a matter of law or a person who could reasonably be viewed by the jury as an accomplice as a matter of fact… . While there was some nonaccomplice evidence, it was far from extensive … . In fact, one of the only other witnesses undermined the accomplice testimony by establishing that defendant was not initially identified as a perpetrator of the underlying assault.

Moreover, we conclude that counsel’s admittedly nonstrategic failure to request the instruction constituted ineffective assistance under all the circumstances of the case … . People v Douglas, 2018 NY Slip Op 02397, First Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/ACCOMPLICES (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/CORROBORATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))

,

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s breach of an oral contract cause of action properly survived a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was an at-will employee of a law firm and sought to enforce an oral agreement entitling him to 50% of the fees generated by work he brought in. In addition the court noted that the breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment were properly pled in the alternative:

The statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1]) does not bar the alleged oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant law firm, pursuant to which the firm agreed to pay plaintiff 50% of the legal fees it earned on cases that he procured or originated and performed work on. In pertinent part, the statute renders void an agreement that “[b]y its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.” The fact that plaintiff was an at-will employee, i.e., he could be terminated at any time … , made the oral agreement capable of completion within the one-year period … . The fact that legal fees earned during the one-year period would not be paid until after the period had ended did not make the agreement incapable of completion within the period … .

Plaintiff’s allegations, supplemented by email and affidavits by other associates at the firm attesting to a course of dealing, state a cause of action against the law firm for breach of implied contract…  and unjust enrichment… . These causes of action are properly pleaded in the alternative … . Goldfarb v Romano, 2018 NY Slip Op 02411, First Dept 4-5-18

​CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACT (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/IMPLIED CONTRACT (THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ORAL CONTRACT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ORAL CONTRACT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add the names of police officers originally sued a John Does should not have been granted:

The motion court erred in granting plaintiff leave to amend her complaint and substitute the officers’ names under the relation back doctrine, because the officers are not “united in interest” with the City of New York, the original defendant … . Moreover, plaintiff failed to show that the failure to name defendants was a mistake… . Further, as for those claims where plaintiff was unaware of the officers’ identities prior to the statute of limitations running, she failed to show that she conducted a diligent inquiry into the actual identities of the intended defendants before the expiration of the statutory period … . Diaz v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02419, First Dept 4-5-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JOHN DOES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT))/RELATION BACK (AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (AMEND COMPLAINT, POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff can be accompanied by a nonlegal representative at a defense physical examination:

Defendants concede that, under this Court’s recent decision in Santana v Johnson (154 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2017]), they can no longer argue that plaintiff was required to show “special and unusual circumstances” to be permitted to have a nonlegal representative present at a physical examination conducted on their behalf pursuant to CPLR 3121. Martinez v Pinard, 2018 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-5-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, PHYSICAL EXAM, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (PHYSICAL EXAM, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3121 (DISCOVERY, PHYSICAL EXAM, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/PHYSICAL EXAM (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))

,

BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, ,determined plaintiff (Fox) was not entitled to the protections of rent stabilization because the lease was in the name of a corporate entitled formed by the plaintiff and plaintiff was not named in the lease:

In 2008, at Fox’s suggestion, a renewal lease was entered into by plaintiff MBE Ltd., an entity wholly owned by Fox, with the understanding that Fox would continue to occupy the apartment; MBE executed renewal leases for the apartment in 2010 and 2012. Fox has continued to live in the apartment since MBE became the tenant of record. In 2014, defendant 12 East 88th LLC purchased the building and informed Fox that the lease would not be renewed.

Because the 2008 lease, and the subsequent lease renewals, named MBE as the sole tenant and did not identify as the occupant of the apartment a particular individual with a right to demand a renewal lease, Fox is not entitled to the renewal of the lease … .

… [T]his Court [has] established that “a corporation is entitled to a renewal lease where the lease specifies a particular individual as the occupant and no perpetual tenancy is possible” … . Our … cases have construed the first requirement strictly, denying rent stabilization protections to individual occupants who are not actually identified in an entity’s rent stabilized lease … . Fox v 12 E. 88th LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02289, First Dept 4-3-18

​LANDLORD-TENANT (RENT STABILIZATION, BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZATION (BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, RENT STABILIZATION, BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT))

USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Use of a makeshift ladder when an A-frame ladder was available, the fact that plaintiff descended the ladder backwards, and the fact that plaintiff’s boots may have been untied did not constitute the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Plaintiff electrician was injured when he fell from a makeshift wooden ladder while negotiating the distance between the first-floor slab of the building under construction and the ground about five feet below, as he was helping unload a delivery of supplies that was being unloaded from the truck on ground level and placed on the slab. Although plaintiff had been provided an A-frame ladder that morning which was in the basement of the building, the parties cite no evidence contradicting plaintiff’s testimony that he could not use it to access the slab because the ground was covered in dirt, debris, and rocks.

Plaintiff’s decision to use the makeshift ladder that his coworkers were also allegedly using was not the sole proximate cause of the accident where he was never instructed not to use it … . Moreover, where no proper safety device was provided, the fact that his boots may have been untied or that he may have been descending the makeshift ladder backwards was not the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Jarzabek v Schafer Mews Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02295, First Dept 4-3-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that in a risk assessment procedure pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) the State Board of Examiners (and, therefore, the court) may consider youthful-offender-related documents:

New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires the State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders to assess an offender’s risk of reoffense. In making this determination, the Board has access to an offender’s full criminal background, including defendant’s YO-related records. SORA “thereby grants the Board access to the documents, which are available under the CPL if specifically required or permitted by statute'” … . Additionally, members of the Board have “access to YO-related records for the purpose of carrying out duties specifically authorized by law'” … . Therefore, “SORA’s directives both provide the statutory require[ment] or permi[ssion]’ to release the YO records under one provision of the YO statute, and describe the duties specifically authorized by law’ to allow for their release under another” … .

Accordingly, the CPL specifically provides the Board with access to YO-related documents … . As the Board’s inclusion of defendant’s YO adjudication “in assessing the risk of reoffense was based on the Board’s expertise and experience,” it is entitled to judicial deference … . As neither SORA nor the CPL “prohibit[s] the Board’s consideration of YO adjudications for the limited public safety purpose of accurately assessing an offender’s risk level,” Supreme Court appropriately assessed points under risk factors 9 and 10, relating to defendant’s prior YO adjudication … . People v Simono, 2018 NY Slip Op 02291, First Dept 4-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (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