You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a two-justice dissent, determined a hearing must be held to decide whether the remains of Archbishop Fulton Sheen should be removed from St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City to Peoria, Illinois, in anticipation of Archbishop Sheen’s Sainthood. The affidavits submitted by Archbishop Sheen’s relatives, stating that the Archbishop would have wanted his remains moved to Illinois, and the Archbishop’s long-time close friend, stating that the Archbishop expressed a wish that his remains be in New York, required a hearing. The petition court had granted the petition for removal of the remains to Illinois:

​

In June 2016, petitioner brought a proceeding pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 1510(e) seeking to disinter the remains of Archbishop Sheen for removal and transfer to a crypt located in St. Mary’s Cathedral in Peoria. Petitioner submitted the affidavits of her three siblings, all of whom fully support and consent to the transfer … . …

​

A body may be disinterred upon the consent of the cemetery owner, the owners of the lot, and certain specified relatives of the deceased (Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 1510[e]). If such consent cannot be obtained, a court may grant permission to disinter … . There must be a showing of “[g]ood and substantial reasons” before disinterment is allowed  … . Although “each case is dependent upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances” … , “[t]he paramount factor a court must consider in granting permission to disinter is the known desires of the decedent” … . “Among other factors, a court must also consider the desires of the decedent’s next of kin” … . Where issues of fact have been raised concerning the decedent’s wishes, the court should order a hearing … . Matter of Cunningham v Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, 2018 NY Slip Op 00815, First Dept 2-6-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (DISINTERMENT, NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION LAW (DISINTERMENT, NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/DISINTERMENT  (NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/CEMETERIES (DISINTERMENT, NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in the interest of justice (error not preserved), determined that the judge’s failure to instruct the jury that a not guilty verdict on the top count based on the justification defense precluded consideration of the remaining charges was reversible error. The top count was attempted murder and defendant was convicted of assault second degree:

​

… [T]the court’s charge failed to convey that an acquittal on the top count of attempted second-degree murder based on a finding of justification would preclude consideration of the remaining charges. We find that this error was not harmless and that it warrants reversal in the interest of justice … . People v Marcucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00634, First Dept 2-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel because he was told only that his plea had potential immigration consequences when in fact deportation was mandatory:

​

Defendant was deprived of effective assistance when his counsel advised him that his plea would have “potential immigration consequences,” where it is clear that his drug-related conviction would trigger mandatory deportation under 8 USC § 1227(a)(2)(B)(I) … . The remarks made by counsel on the record are sufficient to permit review on direct appeal … . Thus, we hold this matter in abeyance to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been made aware of the deportation consequences of his plea. People v Pequero, 2018 NY Slip Op 00619, First Dept 2-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))

,

CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS’S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the closure of the courtroom during a prosecution witness’s testimony was proper in this gang-related murder case:

​

The record established an overriding interest in partially, and later completely, closing the courtroom during the testimony of an identifying eyewitness (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48 [1984]), and the other requirements of Waller were likewise satisfied as to both closures. The witness’s “extreme fear of testifying in open court was sufficient to establish an overriding interest” … , because the witness’s inability to testify without the closures at issue “could have severely undermined the truth seeking function of the court” … in this gang-related murder case. …

​

… [T]he court conducted a hearing at which the witness testified that he previously had been threatened for cooperating with the prosecution in another trial, that he had heard threats made against potential prosecution witnesses in the present case, and that he and his family lived in the same neighborhood where the shooting occurred. The court was entitled to credit the witness’s testimony that he felt threatened by defendant’s cousin and could not testify in his presence … . Although the cousin did not make any direct threats to the witness, he appeared to be closely associated with a person who did so. People v Sharp, 2018 NY Slip Op 00623, First Dept 2-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS’S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))/CLOSURE OF COURTROOM (CRIMINAL LAW, CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS’S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS’S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, PUBLIC TRIAL, CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS’S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly allowed petitioner (Townsend) to file a late notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). Petitioner had been treated for a lacerated thumb. Petitioner did not learn a tendon had been torn until after the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim had passed. He hired an attorney shortly thereafter. The attorney requested petitioner’s medical records from HHC but had not received them by the time the statute of limitations was about to run out. At that point the attorney petitioned for leave to file a late notice of claim. Although HHC did not have timely actual knowledge of the nature of the malpractice claim, because the torn tendon was not mentioned in the HHC medical records, the petitioner’s excuse for not filing the notice of claim (HHC’s failure to provide the medical records) was deemed sufficient:

​

The actual knowledge requirement “contemplates actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim,’ not knowledge of a specific legal theory” … . Facts found in medical records that merely “suggest” the possibility of malpractice are insufficient, as a plaintiff must demonstrate a hospital’s actual knowledge of negligent acts or omissions which result in injury to a plaintiff … . Supreme Court correctly found that HHC did not acquire actual knowledge of Townson’s malpractice claim through the medical records.

The dissent concedes that Townson … did not learn of [his] torn tendon until March 19, 2015, after the 90-day period had expired. The dissent argues that Townson’s excuse may have been reasonable had he requested leave to file shortly after March 19, 2015, when he learned of the torn tendon. In the dissent’s view the delay in serving the notice of claim is not excusable.

We disagree. Townson’s claim of malpractice is premised upon a theory that the emergency room failed to evaluate whether internal, connective soft tissue damage resulted from the deep laceration. Townson’s counsel, at the time he was retained, which was immediately after Townson had learned of the torn tendon, promptly sent a request to HHC for the medical records to discern the viability of Townson’s malpractice claim, but HHC failed to respond on multiple occasions … . Matter of Townson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00607, First Dept 2-1-18

​

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))

,

INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attempted grand larceny counts should not have been dismissed or reduced based upon the grand jury evidence. The defendant was attempting to remove mail from a mailbox in which envelopes containing money orders had been planted by the police. There was no evidence any of the envelopes defendant had removed contained the planted money orders. The motion court reduced the grand larceny counts because it could not be proven defendant intended to steal property of a certain value. The First Department held that the intent requirement does not attach to the value element of the offense:

​

The court erred in dismissing one count of the indictment, and reducing another, on the ground that the People were required to present proof of intent with regard to the property value elements of attempted grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees. These elements are strict liability aggravating factors when the completed crimes are charged. While the Penal Law definitions of attempt (Penal Law § 110.00) and intentionally (Penal Law § 15.05[1]) may be susceptible to the interpretation accorded them by the motion court, any ambiguity has been resolved by the Court of Appeals’ holding in People v Miller (87 NY2d 211 [1995]), that a strict liability aggravating factor of a completed crime is not a “result” to which an intent requirement attaches when an attempt to commit the completed crime is charged. Accordingly, the mental culpability requirements for an attempt and a completed crime are identical… , and the court erred in finding that the attempted grand larceny charges required evidence of intent to steal property of a certain value. People v Deleon, 2018 NY Slip Op 00531,  First Dept 1-30-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/GRAND LARCENY (ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant in this slip and fall case. The defendant did not demonstrate when the area of the fall was last cleaned or inspected. Therefore no prima facie case was made out. Reliance on gaps in plaintiffs’ case is not enough in the summary-judgment context.

In this slip and fall action, defendant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment by merely pointing to perceived gaps in plaintiffs’ case … . Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when plaintiff fell … . Vargas v Riverbay Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00520, First Dept 1-30-18

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action based upon allegations of “poor lighting” and the failure to provide a cover to protect against electrocution should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was an elevator mechanic who was electrocuted when he came into contact with a transformer in the elevator control room. There were no witnesses to the accident. Plaintiffs did not allege the level of lighting constituted a code violation. The absence of a cover over the transformer did not violate any applicable code and defendants were never notified of a problem with the transformers, which had been routinely inspected:

​

With regard to the issue of whether defendants caused or created a hazardous condition, there is no dispute that [defendants] not design or manufacture the elevator control cabinet, or any of its electrical components, including the transformers … .

​

As to whether defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition … the building’s property manager… testified that he was never informed that there was any problem with the elevator control cabinet or that the transformers lacked a proper cover either by the DOB or by United despite the fact that both DOB (NYC Department of Buildings) and [the defendant elevator consultant service] conducted inspections of the ninth floor motor room. [The consultant-service president] testified that a cover was not required on the transformers because the transformers were in an enclosed cabinet. …

​

Even if the elevator control cabinet did not comply with the [American National Standards Institute (ANSI)] standard because the transformers did not have a cover, plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendants were required by law to comply with the … ANSI standard. Indeed, the … ANSI standard has not been adopted by or incorporated into New York City’s elevator code and ANSI itself is not a statute, ordinance or regulation. Thus, a violation thereof is not evidence of negligence … . Bradley v HWA 1290 III LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00516, First Dept 1-30-18

NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))/AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI)  (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION, VIOLATION OF AN ANSI STANDARD IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))/LIGHTING (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS CONCERNING THE ALLEGEDLY INADEQUATE LIGHTING ALLEGED, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))

POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant was not in custody at the time he made statements, despite the presence of several police officers and one officer’s expectation that defendant would be arrested. Therefore defendant’s motion to suppress the statements was properly denied:

​

Although several officers were present, they did not have their guns drawn, did not handcuff or restrain defendant in any way, and did not otherwise create a coercive or police-dominated atmosphere … . A reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have thought that he was in custody … , but rather “that the police were still in the process of gathering information about the alleged incident prior to taking any action” … . The officer’s expectation that defendant would be arrested, based on the victim’s complaint, was not conveyed to defendant. “A policeman’s unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was in custody’ at a particular time; the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation” … . People v Clarke, 2018 NY Slip Op 00472, First Dept 1-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CUSTODY, SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/CUSTODY (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT, CUSTODY, POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated personal jurisdiction over a New Jersey radiation therapy clinic (PPM) to be entitled to disclosure under both CPLR 301 (general jurisdiction) and 302 (specific jurisdiction):

Plaintiff made a “sufficient start” in establishing that New York courts have jurisdiction over PPM under CPLR 301 and 302(a)(1) to be entitled to disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3211(d) … . With regard to general jurisdiction, codified in CPLR 301, it is not clear whether PPM’s “affiliations with the State [New York] are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the [] State” … . However, the record contains a State filing in which PPM identified itself as having a principal place of business in Manhattan — “tangible evidence” upon which to question PPM’s claims to the contrary … .

With regard to specific jurisdiction (CPLR 302[a][1]), the record shows that PPM’s activities in New York were “purposeful and [that] there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . PPM chose and marketed its Somerset, New Jersey, location to target New York residents, touting its proximity to New York in advertising, entered into an agreement with a consortium of New York City hospitals for the referral of cancer patients for treatment at its facility, and provided the consortium’s doctors with privileges at its facility. In contrast to Paterno v Laser Spine Inst. (24 NY3d 370 [2014]), a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff argued that New York courts had jurisdiction over a Florida-based facility and its doctors based on an advertisement and communications, in this case, plaintiff did not seek out PPM. She says that she was directed to PPM by her New York doctor, defendant Raj Shrivastava, as part of a referral fee agreement, that Dr. Shrivastava thereafter co-managed her care, and that PPM billed her directly for Dr. Shrivastava’s services. Robins v Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00464, First Dept 1-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (d) (DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 301 (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 302  (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL JURISDICTION (CPLR 301, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT))/SPECIFIC JURISDICTION (CPLR 302 (A)(1), PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (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