You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

THE LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TENANT TO PREVENT AN ASSAULT BY ANOTHER TENANT; THE LANDLORD’S DUTY IS NOT TRIGGERED UNLESS THE LANDLORD HAS THE AUTHORITY, ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF A TENANT-ASSAILANT; THE ABILITY TO EVICT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord did not have a duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another:

… [The landlord] demonstrated prima facie that they were not liable for the third-party defendant’s alleged assault on plaintiff. A landlord has no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another tenant unless it has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the actions of the assailant …  Here, defendants had no authority or opportunity to remove Vasquez from the premises prior to the assault. Defendants’ employee testified that defendants were unaware of prior complaints of [the tenant] engaging in violence, and plaintiff acknowledged that before the attack she never complained about [the tenant] being violent. Moreover, the assault upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable … .

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Defendants’ ability to evict [the tenant] did not constitute the requisite authority, ability, and opportunity to control him … . Plaintiff failed to identify any prior complaints about [the tenant] being violent or making explicit threats of violence. Plaintiff’s generalized complaints about unsupervised children on the complex and about other children engaging in bullying were not sufficient to put defendants on notice that [the tenant] might be violent … . Rodriguez v Madison Sec. Group, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01869, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of a landlord’s duty to prevent an assault by one tenant against another.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE EVEN A “MINIMAL INQUIRY” WHEN DEFENDANT STATED HE WANTED ANOTHER ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT DID NOT ABANDON THE ISSUE BY NOT RAISING IT AGAIN WHEN HE PLED GUILTY; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rodriguez, over a dissenting opinion, determined defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to explain his request for a new attorney. Defendant attempted to raise the issue at an early court appearance, but the judge made no inquiry. Subsequently, without raising the issue again, defendant pled guilty while represented by the same attorney:

“Where a defendant makes a seemingly serious request for reassignment of counsel, the court must make at least a ‘minimal inquiry’ as to ‘the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution’ ” … . Generally, to trigger the “minimal inquiry” requirement, the defendant must provide specific factual allegations … .

However, the “minimal inquiry” requirement presumes a fair opportunity to be heard. The law, in other words, does not permit the court to satisfy its obligations in this area by refusing the defendant an opportunity to record a potentially serious request. Thus, if the court denies the defendant’s “request for substitution of counsel without conducting any inquiry whatsoever, and without permitting defendant to explain, either orally or in writing, why such an inquiry might be necessary,” the defendant’s conviction should be vacated … .

Here, the court summarily denied defendant’s application without giving him a fair opportunity to be heard. Specifically, when defendant first asked to speak, the court ignored him altogether. When defendant made a second attempt, the court refused to permit him to address the issue and instead instructed him to “[t]alk to [his] lawyer.” As the People acknowledge, defendant had to interrupt the proceeding on his third attempt to communicate even his most elemental “need [for] a new attorney.” People v Dinkins, 2026 NY Slip Op 01742, First Dept 3-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the inquiry which must be made by a judge when a defendant requests a new attorney.

 

,

ONE PLAINTIFF-TENANT TESTIFIED HE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO THE LANDLORD DEFENDANTS ABOUT THE TENANT WHO SET FIRE TO THE APARTMENT BUILDING, INFORMING THE DEFENDANTS THAT THE TENANT THREATENED “TO KILL EVERYONE” IN THE BUILDING AND WAS SEEN CARRYING GASOLINE TANKS INTO THE BUILDING; THE DEFENDANT LANDLORDS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT THE TENANT FROM STARTING THE FIRE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord defendants did not have a duty to investigate, monitor, or control a tenant who set fire to the five-story building injuring the plaintiff-tenants:

One of the plaintiffs testified that he made several complaints to defendants concerning the tenant’s behavior before the incident. Specifically, he reported to defendants that the tenant threatened “to kill everyone” in the building and was seen carrying gasoline tanks into the building. The motion court found that this testimony “raise[d] issues of fact as to whether defendants failed to take minimal measures to investigate the presence of gasoline in the apartment, and to protect the occupants from the risk of fire arising out of the presence of gasoline.”

The motion court erred in applying the “minimal precaution” standard set forth in negligent security cases because the assailant here was not a third-party nontenant … . Rather, he was a tenant in the building who was lawfully permitted to be there at the time of the fire. The appropriate test is, therefore, whether defendants lacked the “authority, ability, and opportunity to control” the tenant’s actions such that they had a duty to prevent him from starting the fire …  . Applying that standard to the facts here, defendants had no authority or ability to evict the tenant under the lease or New York law prior to the fire … . Moreover, plaintiffs failed to establish a clear basis under New York law for defendants to investigate, monitor, or control the tenant which could have prevented him from setting the fire … . Accordingly, defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of their inability to prevent the tenant from starting the fire that caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Molina v Appula Mgt. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01603 First Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: The negligent-security-minimal-precaution standard of care for landlords applies only to security re: the actions of non-tenants. Here it was a tenant who set fire to the apartment building and injured other tenants. The appropriate test for the landlord’s duty re: a tenant’s actions is whether the landlord has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the tenant’s actions under the lease or New York law, which was not the case here.

 

,

MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND HER REQUEST FOR RESPITE CARE BECAUSE SHE WAS OVERWHELMED DID NOT SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN IMMINENT RISK TO THE CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence of mother’s mental illness did not support the finding that she neglected the children:

The court’s determination that the mother neglected the subject children was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . Neglect occurs when a child’s “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired” as the result of the parent’s failure to “exercise a minimum degree of care” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f][i]). “While parental neglect may be based on mental illness, proof of a parent’s mental illness alone will not support a finding of neglect, unless it is shown that the parent’s condition resulted in imminent danger to the child” … .

Although the mother testified that she was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, the record does not support a finding of “a link or causal connection” between the mother’s diagnoses and any impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the children … . The sole evidence of actual impairment was a burn on one of the children, and the uncontroverted testimonial and documentary evidence establish that the injury was accidental and that the mother provided care … .

Further, petitioner failed to establish how the mother’s mental health diagnoses caused the children to be in imminent danger of being impaired. The mother openly acknowledged her mental health diagnoses and treatment … . The record demonstrates that the mother was at all relevant times under the care of a psychiatrist and was compliant with the psychiatrist’s prescribed medications. ….

The mother’s request for respite care was also not a proper basis for finding imminent risk. … [S]he was feeling overwhelmed with caring for her three children and was unwilling or unable to care for and supervise them any longer. The miscellaneous information section states that the mother said she did not want her children any longer and wanted ACS to take them … because she was feeling overwhelmed. … The mother explicitly testified that she was not afraid she would “do something” to hurt her children or herself. Matter of Ja.W., 2026 NY Slip Op 01623, First Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: Here there no evidence that mother presented an imminent risk of impairment to her children. Mother’s acknowledged mental illness, for which she was receiving treatment, and her request for respite care because she was feeling overwhelmed did not amount to neglect.

 

,

THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A CELL PHONE PICTURE TAKEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AT THE POLICE STATION WERE UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court’s finding that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant and suppressing the seized evidence, determined that the circumstances surrounding the identification of the defendant by a robbery victim (the mother) from a cell-phone picture of defendant taken by a police officer were unduly suggestive:

Because, while being escorted to where the officers were holding defendant on a different floor, the mother expressed fear that defendant would “come after” her after he was released from prison, it was decided that instead of requiring her to confront defendant in person, the mother would be shown a picture of defendant that one of the officers took with a cell phone. She was not required to approach defendant after exiting the elevator; however, given the narrow and angular path of the hallway, the agitated defendant was clearly audible to her, and many of the several officers surrounding defendant, at least one of whom was visible in the photo, were immediately apparent to her. She was shown the photo and asked “Is that him?” to which she responded that it “looked like” him, but that he had changed his clothes. Defendant was not arrested at that time, but was arrested approximately 15 minutes later, after the mother was shown the photo several more times and asked whether it depicted the perpetrator. * * *

While the choice to proceed with identification via a showup, even a single-photo showup, is generally disfavored, it may be reasonable in view of its temporal and spatial proximity to the crime … . Nevertheless, showup identification evidence “must be scrutinized very carefully for unacceptable suggestiveness and unreliability” … . “When a defendant challenges the suggestiveness of an out-of-court viewing of defendant’s likeness, the central issue presented for judicial consideration is whether the pretrial display is conducted under circumstances bearing the earmarks of improper influence and unreliability, which create the risk of mistaken identification and thus infect the truth-seeking process . . . showing one photograph of a defendant — the procedure at issue in defendant’s case — carries the risk of undue suggestiveness” … . The procedure employed here carried that risk, and because the substances underlying defendant’s conviction were received as a direct result of it, they should have been suppressed. People v Perry, 2026 NY Slip Op 01617, First Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: The robbery victim, while in the police station and within earshot of the agitated defendant, was shown a cell phone picture of the defendant taken by an officer at the police station. She said the picture “looked like” the defendant but he had changed his clothes. The identification procedure was deemed unduly suggestive.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE “TERMS AND CONDITIONS” ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT WHICH INCLUDED THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; DEFENDANT’S EFFORT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the defendant energy company did not demonstrate plaintiff agreed to an arbitration clause which defendant claimed was included in a four-page “Terms and Conditions” addendum to the contract. Essentially plaintiffs argued they were never provided with the four-page “Terms and Conditions.” Defendant relied on weak and contradictory evidence to the contrary, some of which was provided for the first time in a reply document (generally not considered by a motion court):

As a procedural matter, defendant could not employ its reply to remedy a basic deficiency in its prima facie showing … . After all, defendant’s theory of actual notice rested on its sales representative’s adherence to a business practice and defendant was unable to establish, in its underlying submission, the actual relevant practice (if any) that [the sales representative] used.

As a substantive matter, the inconsistent factual presentation between defendant’s underlying submission and its reply submission leaves a void on the critical question of what documents were reviewed with [plaintiff], undermining defendant’s contention that a particular business practice was employed and followed such that [plaintiff] received actual notice of the arbitration provision. Knight v Family Energy Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01599, First Dept 3-17-26

 

, ,

A STIPULATION TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Michael, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the foreclosure action would have been untimely pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Protection Act (FAPA) because the plaintiff’s voluntary discontinuance no longer can stop the running of the statute of limitations, here the parties had entered a stipulation tolling the statute of limitations. Supreme Court erred by finding the stipulation unenforceable:

Plaintiff’s prior mortgage foreclosure action against defendant was commenced on July 25, 2008, which indisputably accelerated the entire loan. On May 4, 2011, the parties agreed to discontinue the foreclosure action without prejudice via written stipulation. They also agreed that “the statute of limitations for any claims of plaintiff or defendant against the other is hereby tolled from July 22, 2008 . . . until June 1, 2013.” The stipulation was executed by the parties’ respective counsel and filed with the court. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this foreclosure action on February 16, 2018 and moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff’s action was time-barred under FAPA. * * *

Simply put, despite FAPA’s retroactive application, the parties’ 2011 stipulation in which they expressly agreed to toll the limitations period to June 1, 2013 effectively tolled the limitations period to that date. Plaintiff’s commencement of this action on February 16, 2018, less than six years later, was thus timely. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Nicholas, 2026 NY Slip Op 01461, First Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: A valid stipulation tolling the statute of limitations will be enforced even where, pursuant to FAPA, the revived foreclosure action would otherwise have been untimely.

 

,

THE TWITTER/X POSTS REFERRING TO PLAINTIFF AS A “STALKER” AND STATING “THAT MAN HAS HARMED MULTIPLE WOMEN AND IS ABUSIVE AND MANIPULATIVE …” WERE DEEMED NONACTIONABLE OPINION AND THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court properly found that the anti-SLAPP statute applied to this defamation, but the defamation complaint should have been dismissed because the Twitter/X posts constituted nonactionable opinion:

Plaintiff and defendant were PhD students at Columbia University … and were enrolled in the same seminar … . Plaintiff alleges that he was defamed by two Tweets defendant posted on Twitter (now X) … .. In response to seeing a picture of plaintiff with “a prominent scholar, attorney, abolitionist, and author,” defendant retweeted the post with a meme stating, “if I speak, Twitter will suspend me,” followed by a comment “I am triggered.” She then separately tweeted, without naming plaintiff or the other individual in the photograph, “when the abolitionist posts your stalker,” followed later by a comment to her Tweet “that man has harmed multiple women and is abusive and manipulative but congratulations on his dissertation, I guess.” …

… [Supreme Court] should … have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff failed to show … that his claims had a substantial basis in law (Civil Rights Law §§ 70—a, 76—a; CPLR 3211[g] …). Defamation requires a false statement of fact and is judged from the perspective of an average, reasonable reader … . Context is critical for social media statements, where hyperbole and rhetorical exaggeration are common and are less likely to be interpreted literally … . Read in context, defendant’s tweets were emotionally charged reactions written in Twitter’s vernacular and accompanied by rhetoric, signaling that they were nonactionable opinions … .  Talbert v Tynes, 2026 NY Slip Op 01478, First Dept 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the way courts interpret “hyperbole and rhetorical exaggeration” in the context of a defamation action based upon Twitter/X posts.​

 

,

UNDER THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA), A DEFENDANT CAN RENEW A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AFTER A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND AFTER THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAS EXPIRED AS LONG AS THE SALE HAS NOT YET BEEN CONDUCTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for renewal of its summary judgment motion in this foreclosure proceeding should have been granted. The motion was based upon the retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). Renewal should be granted after a judgment of foreclosure and after the time for appeal has expired if the sale has not yet been conducted:

Generally, “a motion for leave to renew based upon an alleged change in the law must be made prior to the entry of a final judgment, or before the time to appeal has fully expired” … . However, in Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed Bank, the Court of Appeals clarified the application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), finding that it applies retroactively and to all foreclosure actions in which “a final foreclosure sale had not been enforced prior to its effective date, including actions pending at the time of its effective date” … .

A judgment of foreclosure and sale is deemed enforced when the sale is concluded … . Therefore, the only way to effectuate the retroactive application of FAPA after a judgment has been entered and the time to appeal has expired, is by filing a motion to renew before the sale is conducted … . Based on a change in the law with the enactment of the FAPA, [defendant’s] motion for leave to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221(e)(2), was timely … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Jin Hua Lin, 2026 NY Slip Op 01116, First Dept 2-26-26

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) allows a defendant to renew a motion for summary judgment after a judgment of foreclosure and after the time for appeal has expired if the foreclosure sale has not yet been conducted.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO COMMIT ASSAULT SECOND, WHICH INVOLVED INJURY TO POLICE OFFICERS, DID NOT SURVIVE A WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE ANALYSIS; THE TWO JUVENILES WERE FIXATED SOLEY UPON FIGHTING EACH OTHER THROUGHOUT THE BRIEF INCIDENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, determined the assault second adjudications were not supported by the weight of the evidence. Two juveniles were fighting each other and police officers were injured trying to break-up the fight. The First Department found that, because the juveniles were fixated only on fighting each other throughout the incident there was insufficient evidence of an intent to interfere with the officers’ performance of their duty:

… Penal Law § 120.05 (3) provides: “A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when: . . . 3. With intent to prevent [an] officer . . . from performing a lawful duty, . . . he or she causes physical injury to such [] officer.” Accordingly, a person is guilty of the offense when their conscious objective or purpose is to prevent an officer from performing their lawful duty, the person acts in a manner consistent with that intent, and the officer is injured … . * * *

The record … lacks any indication that appellant directed his actions at the officers, whether by turning around, throwing an elbow backward, or in some other way … . …

Similarly, the evidence at the hearing did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had even a chance to recognize and consciously disregard the officers’ directives. Matter of Cynque T., 2026 NY Slip Op 01147, First Dept 2-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors considered under a weight-of-the-evidence analysis of criminal intent.

 

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