You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKERS SUCH THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD REASONABLY RELY ON THE BROKERS TO RENEW A POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant insurance brokers may be liable in negligence with respect to an audit which led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped. Whether the brokers can be held liable depends on whether there was a “special relationship” between the brokers and the plaintiffs upon which plaintiffs could reasonably rely. The plaintiffs raised a question of fact on the existence of a special relationship:

Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence claim because there are issues of fact concerning whether the parties had a special relationship, exceeding that of a traditional broker-client relationship. Plaintiffs testified that, among other things, defendants advised plaintiffs regarding insurance issues, addressed plaintiffs’ audits, and handled insurance policy changes … . Although defendants’ principal testified that the insurance carrier did not contact defendants during the audit that eventually led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped, one of the individual plaintiffs testified that he had worked with defendants for more than a decade, used defendants for all six of his businesses, and that he would send everything in his possession relating to insurance to defendants, who would in turn take care of it, including when plaintiffs received audit requests from the insurance carrier. In such a situation where “there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on,” a special relationship may arise thereby “creating an additional duty of advisement” even in the absence of a specific request from the insured to the broker … .

There are also issues of fact concerning which party was responsible for managing the renewal process as defendants’ involvement with previous audits may evince a course of conduct demonstrating that the renewals were in fact defendants’ responsibility … . The record evidence does not disprove as a matter of law that defendants’ inaction in renewing the policy did not proximately cause plaintiffs’ injuries … . S & M Bronx Inc. v Diversified Planning Brokerage LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03247, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary to demonstrate a “special relationship” with insurance brokers such that the brokers can be held liable in negligence for failing to renew a client’s policy.

 

,

A MISREPRESENTATION OF PRESENT FACT, UNLIKE A MISREPRESENTATION OF FUTURE INTENT TO PERFORM UNDER A CONTRACT, WILL SUPPORT A FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent inducement cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The fraudulent inducement claim was based on an assertion of present fact. i.e., that the judgment debtor had sufficient capital to close on the property:

We reject defendants’ argument that the fraudulent inducement cause of action is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. “[A] misrepresentation of present fact, unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform under the contract, is collateral to the contract, even though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign it, and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” … . The alleged representations … that the judgment debtor had sufficient capital to close on the property were representations of present fact, not future intent to perform.

Similarly, we reject defendants’ argument that plaintiff seeks identical damages under the fraudulent inducement cause of action and the breach of contract cause of action. Under the circumstances of this case, at this early procedural stage plaintiff is entitled to maintain the fraudulent inducement claim in the alternative to the breach of contract claim … . This conclusion is especially true because the remedy available to plaintiff for fraudulent inducement under the “out-of-pocket rule” is not lost profits but rather “the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong” … . CSN Realty Corp. v Moussaieff, 2026 NY Slip Op 03228, First Deptt 5-21-26

Practice Point: Here the misrepresentation that the judgment debtor had sufficient funds to close was a misrepresentation of present fact which supported a fraudulent inducement cause of action distinct from the breach of contract cause of action.​

 

, ,

PURCHASING AND FORECLOSING ON MORTGAGES IN NEW YORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW; THE LLC CANNOT SUE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff limited liability company (NS194) could not sue in New York because purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in New York under the Limited Liability Company Law:

Supreme Court erred in directing plaintiff to prove NS194’s compliance with Limited Liability Company Law § 802 … . Defendants failed to rebut the presumption that NS194 was not conducting business within the state and lacked capacity to sue pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 802. Plaintiff’s conduct of purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in this state (see Limited Liability Company Law § 803[a][1] [“maintaining or defending any action or proceeding” is not “doing business in this state”] …). … ([S]ee Star201, LLC v Martinez, AD3d , 2026 NY Slip Op 02144, *2 [2d Dept Apr. 8, 2026] [“the mere maintenance of an action [for foreclosure] by a foreign corporation does not constitute doing business within the State”] …). Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Okoronkwo, 2026 NY Slip Op 03253, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: An LLC which purchases and forecloses on mortgages in New York is not “doing business in New York” and therefore cannot sue in New York.​

 

, ,

A SERIES OF REMARKS MADE BY HIS SERGEANT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE REMARKS WERE MOTIVATED BY RACIAL ANIMUS; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s racial discrimination complaint pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff stated a cause of action for racial discrimination under the City HRL (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). … [Sergeant Martin] Toczek made many statements, both in the office of the NYPD Auto Crimes Unit and on a text thread with his subordinates including plaintiff, criticizing racial justice protests in the National Football League by Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players. On one occasion, plaintiff, who is Black, stated to Toczek that the players had a constitutional right to protest, and Toczek replied, “yeah, . . .but it’s my right . . . if I want to like [B]lack people.” Toczek also shared articles about Black NFL players committing crimes and described them as “perps.”

… Toczek directed plaintiff to accompany two White detectives in apprehending an arrestee who “had a history of assaulting police officers who tried to arrest him.” The arrestee had previously assaulted Dan Fox, a white Auto Crimes Unit detective. Plaintiff was on restricted duty at the time because of a shoulder injury and could not carry a gun or a shield. Toczek told plaintiff not to worry because, “[w]hen he sees you, he’s not going to fight, look how big you are,” and further suggested that the arrestee would not assault plaintiff “because, look at [Fox], look at him and look at you.” Plaintiff is 6’7″ and weighs about 260 pounds. Plaintiff suffered a serious injury when the arrestee resisted arrest; he retired shortly afterward with accidental disability benefits for his line-of-duty injury. * * *

… [I]t is a jury issue as to whether Toczek’s other comments about the NFL reflected racial animus. A reasonable juror could conclude that, once Toczek signaled that his objection to the protests was at least in part about race, every other reference to the protests and the NFL became infused with racial animus. * * *

The complaint … sufficiently alleges that Toczek’s assignment of plaintiff to the potentially dangerous arrest was “motivated at least in part by” plaintiff’s race … . * * *

… [A] reasonable juror could interpret Toczek’s assertion that plaintiff’s appearance, including his size, would deter violence from the arrestee, as an attempt to invoke the “classic and common racist trope that Black men are inherently threatening or dangerous” … . Taylor v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03128, First Dept 5-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when remarks made over a period of years by a supervisor in the work place can raise a question of fact about whether the remarks were motivated by racial animus and constituted violations of the NYC Human Rights Law.

 

,

IF A LADDER IS NOT SECURED AND IT MOVES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT MOVES BEFORE OR AFTER PLAINTIFF LOSES HIS BALANCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IS WARRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED STATEMENT IN AN UNCERTIFIED MEDICAL RECORD WHICH WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT WAS INADMISSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the fact that the ladder was not secured and moved warranted summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, and (2) plaintiff’s purported remark which was included in an uncertified medical record and was not germane to treatment was inadmissible:

Plaintiff’s testimony that he fell because he lost his balance and the ladder on which he was standing shook established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, “[i]t is irrelevant whether plaintiff initially lost his balance before or after the ladder [shook] because . . . the ladder failed to remain steady under plaintiff[ ] . . . as he performed his work” … . Nor is this “a case where an issue of fact is raised as to whether plaintiff simply lost his balance or footing while working on a properly secured ladder. Indeed, plaintiff’s fall was directly related to the work that he was performing, as opposed to his own misstep” … . “Defendants were obligated to ensure that the ladder was secured to something stable” … . “Where a ladder is offered as a work-site safety device, it must be sufficient to provide proper protection. It is well settled that failure to properly secure a ladder, to ensure that it remain[s] steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)”  … . …

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. The only evidence on which defendants relied was a recorded statement purportedly made by plaintiff after his accident that appears on a single page from his medical records. However, not only was the medical record uncertified and, therefore, inadmissible, but plaintiff’s description of the accident in that statement was not germane to his diagnosis or treatment … . Diaz v Boston Props., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03114, First Dept 5-19-26

​Practice Point: Ladders which are not secured to something stable violate Labor Law 240(1).

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A GRINDER WITH NO GUARD KICKED BACK; THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO USE A SLEDGEHAMMER, NOT THE GRINDER, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; A SLEDGEHAMMER IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when a grinder with no guard kicked back. The allegation that plaintiff was told to use a sledgehammer, not the angle grinder, did not raise a question of fact:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as that claim was predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(3), which mandates that equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable and that damaged equipment shall be immediately repaired, restored, or removed from the job site. …

… [E]ven if plaintiff was negligent by using the grinder instead of the sledgehammer, this at most constitutes comparative negligence, which is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion … .

To the extent that [defendant] argues that plaintiff was recalcitrant in ignoring the alleged instructions to use a sledgehammer and to not use an angle grinder, this is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. … [E]ven if the defense were to apply to a Labor Law § 241(6) claim … it has no application where, as here, no adequate safety devices were provided because a sledgehammer is not a safety device.  Terron-Alcantara v Charlie’s Real Estate LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03091, First Dept 5-14-26

Practice Point: Comparative negligence does not defeat a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

Practice Point: Here, the allegation plaintiff was told to use a sledgehammer, not the unsafe grinder, did not raise a question of fact on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MENTION THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) COMPONENT OF THE SENTENCE RENDERS THE PLEA UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s plea, determined the judge never informed the defendant of the postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the sentence. The court noted that the issue may be raised for the first time on appeal. The issue need not be preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the conviction:

The record does not establish that the court advised defendant when he pleaded guilty that the sentence would include a period of PRS. Consequently, the plea “cannot be deemed knowing, voluntary and intelligent” … , and it must be vacated.

Where a trial judge does not fulfill the obligation to advise a defendant of PRS during the plea allocution, “the defendant may challenge the plea as not knowing, voluntary and intelligent on direct appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a post-allocution motion” … . The prosecution’s reference to its offer of PRS at the plea proceeding does not change this conclusion where the court itself never mentioned PRS at the plea proceeding … . Similarly, defendant’s failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction does not bar him from raising the issue at this time. People v Ndiaye, 2026 NY Slip Op 03080, First Dept 5-14-26

Practice Point: A guilty plea is not “knowing, voluntary and intelligent” if the judge fails to mention the postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the sentence.

 

,

HERE THE “RENEWED” SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE WHICH WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE FIRST MOTION; THE “RENEWED” MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary judgment should not have been granted; it was based on evidence which was available for the first motion:

… “[S]uccessive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained without a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient justification” … . In support of the renewed motion for summary judgment, plaintiff presented an affirmation from Joseph DeCiutiis, a senior vice president at a title insurance company who represented that his company had determined that a secretary certificate of authority for the sale of the subject real property was “insurable authorization for the sale.” While the DeCiutiis affirmation is dispositive of the issue of fact identified by this Court in Apple Bank I with respect to plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff offers no reason why it could not have obtained a similar affirmation in support of its first summary judgment motion. Such evidence “was clearly available to [plaintiff] earlier, and thus should be rejected for failure to show due diligence in attempting to obtain the statement before the submission of the prior motion” … .  Apple Bank for Sav. v Prime Rok Real Estate LLC., 2026 NY Slip Op 03057, First Dept 5-14-26

Practice Point: A “successive” summary judgment motion which is based on evidence which could have been included in the initial motion will be denied.

 

,

RPAPL 1301, WHICH PROHIBITS SIMULTANEOUS ACTIONS AT LAW TO RECOVER ON A NOTE AND ACTIONS IN EQUITY TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE, DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE PROPERTIES; RPAPL 1371 DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE FORECLOSURES AND THEREFORE DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS TO DEEM A JUDGMENT SATISFIED UPON A FORECLOSURE SALE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that RPAPL 1301 and 1371 do not apply to out-of-state foreclosures:

The motion court properly rejected defendants’ position that RPAPL 1301 was a ground to deny plaintiff’s motion. That section “prohibits a mortgage lender seeking repayment of a loan from simultaneously prosecuting an action at law to recover upon a promissory note and an action in equity to foreclose the mortgage” … . However, RPAPL 1301 does not apply “where, as here, the property securing the loan is located outside of New York State” … . This is the case even though the parties in their loan documents agreed that New York law would govern any disputes arising from the agreements.

Similarly, RPAPL 1371 does not apply to out-of-state foreclosures and therefore does not provide a basis to deem the judgment against defendants satisfied upon the foreclosure sale of the properties … . Thus, defendants’ motion seeking an order deeming the judgment satisfied because plaintiff failed to move for a deficiency judgment after the out-of-state properties were foreclosed upon and sold was also properly denied. WPC Billboard Lender LLC v Bartkowski, 2026 NY Slip Op 02951, First Dept 5-12-26

 

, , , ,

THE ALLEGATIONS THAT DEFENDANT’ GRABBED PLAINTIFF’S SHOULDERS AND TOUCHED PLAINTIFF’S CHEEKS DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS “FORCIBLE TOUCHING” OR FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, over an extensive dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined this lawsuit alleging a tortious “forcible touching” and intentional infliction of emotional distress should have been dismissed:

Plaintiff alleges that during the summers from 2000 through 2003, he worked in the wardrobe department of Roanoke Island Historical Association (RIHA), where defendant Long also worked. According to plaintiff, during that period there were numerous instances where Long committed acts of sexual misconduct toward plaintiff. The most egregious occurred in 2002, when Long engaged in nonconsensual sex with plaintiff while plaintiff was intoxicated. Plaintiff alleges that six years later, in 2008, after not having had any contact with Long, he briefly encountered Long in a public costume shop where Long grabbed plaintiff’s shoulders and touched plaintiff’s cheeks. * * *

Supreme Court erred in denying defendant Long’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, as defendant established that plaintiff’s allegations do not “fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Plaintiff failed to properly allege facts sufficient to establish a tort that would constitute forcible touching under Penal Law § 130.52(1). Long’s alleged acts of grabbing plaintiff’s shoulders and touching his cheeks “with the intimacy of a grandmother greeting her grown grandchild” were not, under the circumstances, sexual or intimate in nature, as required by the statute.

Penal Law § 130.52(1) was enacted in 2000. It states that “a person is guilty of forcible touching when such person intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose forcibly touches the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire.” “[F]orcible touching includes squeezing, grabbing or pinching” … . * * *

Plaintiff’s shoulders and cheeks did not constitute “sexual or intimate parts” that were “sufficiently personal or private that [they] would not be touched in the absence of a close relationship between the parties” … . Thus, Long’s acts of grabbing plaintiff’s shoulders and touching his cheeks were not, under the circumstances, sexual or intimate in nature, as necessary to state a claim for forcible touching … . Watson v Roanoke Is. Historical Assn., 2026 NY Slip Op 02949, First Dept 5-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the allegations necessary to state a cause of action for tortious “forcible touching.”

 

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