You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

DEFENDANT CON EDISION EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO SUPPORT THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant Con Edison’s motion to set aside the verdict in this asbestos-injury case should not have been granted. Con Edison was deemed to have sufficient control over the manner of plaintiff’s work (applying concrete mixed with asbestos) to support the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

The evidence at trial demonstrated that Con Edison had the “authority to control the activity bringing about the injury” … . “[A]n implicit precondition to this duty is that the party to be charged with that obligation have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition” … . * * *

Con Edison had the ability to prevent the hazard ultimately causing the plaintiff’s injury, namely, the application of asbestos-containing materials. Indeed, Con Edison’s specifications affirmatively required the use of hazardous asbestos-containing insulation materials, and Con Edison monitored work for compliance with those specifications. Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 00098, 1st Dept 1-10-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT CON EDISION EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO SUPPORT THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination suit should go forward. Questions of fact had been raised about whether plaintiff’s employer was made sufficiently aware of plaintiff’s disabling anxiety and whether reasonable accommodations should have been made pursuant to the Administrative Code (NYC):

Under these circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether, based on plaintiff’s disclosures, defendant reasonably “should have known” that plaintiff was suffering from a disabling anxiety condition (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[15][a]…). Issues of fact likewise exist as to whether defendant should have entered into a good faith interactive dialogue with plaintiff, inquiring into the nature of her disabling condition and exploring what sorts of accommodations might reasonably be required, and whether reasonable accommodations would have enabled her to perform the “essential requisites of [her] job” (Administrative Code § 8-107[15][b]), without causing defendant “undue hardship in the conduct of . . . [its] business” (id. § 8-102[18]…).

Issues of fact also exist as to whether plaintiff’s alleged disabling anxiety condition caused the poor performance (i.e., absenteeism and unresponsiveness) that defendant pointed to as the reason for her termination … , and, if so, whether plaintiff could have performed the essential requisites of her job with reasonable accommodation (see Administrative Code §§ 8-107[15][b]; 8-102[18]). Chernov v Securities Training Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00126, 1st Dept 1-10-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/DISCRIMINATION (PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (NYC) (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/ANXIETY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/ACCOMMODATIONS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)

,

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, over a dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court, determined proceedings before the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) are quasi-judicial in nature and statements made during the proceedings are therefore protected by absolute, not qualified, privilege. The defamation cause of action should have been dismissed:

The statements that form the basis of the defamation claim at issue here were made to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigator in the course of an investigation. … Given both the nature of an FDA investigation into the propriety of the hospital’s research protocols and the importance of the unimpeded flow of thoughts and information in this investigative context, as a matter of law and public policy, statements to such an investigator must be protected by an absolute privilege, not merely a qualified privilege. * * *

The statements at issue here were made to an FDA investigator looking into accusations that IRB (hospital Institutional Review Board) protocols at NYDH (New York Downtown Hospital) might not be properly handled. The FDA is an administrative agency of the federal government, charged with many responsibilities, including ensuring that new drug trials are handled properly. The complicated regulatory scheme for oversight by the FDA over the operation of IRBs in conducting new drug protocols, controlled by 21 CFR part 56, includes provision for procedures where an FDA investigator observes apparent noncompliance with these regulations in the operation of an IRB. Under these regulations, the IRB and parent institution are informed of those observations, and a response describing the corrective actions to be taken is required (see 21 CFR 56.120[a]). If it is determined that the IRB or the institution has failed to take adequate steps to correct the noncompliance, and the FDA Commissioner determines that this noncompliance may justify the disqualification of the IRB or of the parent institution, “the Commissioner will institute proceedings in accordance with the requirements for a regulatory hearing set forth in part 16” (21 CFR 56.121). Of course, the regulatory scheme explicitly provides for court review of final administrative actions taken by the Commissioner (see 21 CFR 10.45[a]).

It is therefore clear that the procedures created by these regulations of IRBs, which include the possibilities of an adversarial regulatory hearing before the FDA (see 27 CFR 156.121[a]) and subsequent judicial review (see 21 CFR 10.45), qualify as a quasi-judicial process by an administrative agency, Stega v New York Downtown Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00139, 1st Dept 1-10-17

 

DEFAMATION (PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)/ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)/QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (DEFAMATION, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE)

, ,

METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED SHE WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS HER ONLY REMEDY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined the defendant Metropolitan Opera’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. Plaintiff is a singer who has performed with the Met for over twenty years as a featured soloist. Plaintiff, during a performance, fell from an elevated platform and was injured. She sued in negligence. The Met argued plaintiff was an employee and her only recourse was workers’ compensation benefits. The court concluded the negligence cause of action was viable:

WCL [Workers’ Compensation Law] § 2(4) defines “employee” to include “a professional musician or a person otherwise engaged in the performing arts who performs services as such for … a theatre … or similar establishment … unless, by written contract, such musician or person is stipulated to be an employee of another employer covered by this chapter.” Here, plaintiff’s services were provided to the Met pursuant to a per-performance contractor’s agreement, entered into between her corporation and the Met, that provided that the corporation “agree[d] to furnish to The Met the services of its employee, Wendy White . . ., as singer on an individual performance basis.” Plaintiff’s corporation meets the definition of an “employer covered by this chapter,” inasmuch as it is a corporation “having one or more persons in employment” (WCL § 2[3]). Thus, by written contract, plaintiff was stipulated to be an employee of another employer … .

The Met is correct that the plain language of WCL § 2(4) … draws no distinction between regular performers and stars. * * * … Here, the legislative history supports plaintiff’s suggested distinction, since it indicates that the statutory definition of employees was intended to protect the vast majority of performers, who are not “stars,” and that the statutory exception was designed to exclude those performers with the clout to negotiate the terms of their own engagements. White v Metropolitan Opera Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00093, 1st Dept 1-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/STARS (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)

PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of contract causes of action founded in part on piercing the corporate veil was properly denied:

[Plaintiff] alleged that [defendant] Diaz Rivera, exercised “complete dominion and control” and “complete business discretion” over “all aspects of [the corporation’s] management and operations,” and that [the corporation] and Diaz Rivera failed “to follow normal and customary corporate procedures with regard to [the corporation],” in that [the corporation] “fail[ed] to hold required meetings for [the corporation’s] partners, [and] fail[ed] to prepare and keep corporate records.” Finally, [defendant] alleged that Diaz Rivera, with an improper motive, commingled his funds with [corporation] funds, resulting in inadequate capitalization. …

We find that the allegations of an absence of corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, and the commingling of corporate and personal funds, as well as the allegations that Diaz Rivera directed [the corporation] to take various actions that harmed [defendant], including failing to transfer property rights, siphoning resort revenues, and incurring unnecessary taxes, are sufficient to withstand this pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, based on alter ego liability, as against Diaz Rivera. Cargill Soluciones Empresariales, S.A. de C.V., SOFOM, ENR v Desarrolladora Farallon S. de R.L. de C.V.,2017 NY Slip Op 00069, 1st Dept 1-5-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL  (PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/ALTER EGO (CORPORATION LAW, (PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

TERMS OF CONTRACT WERE NOT ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL, MOTION TO DIMSISS BREACH AND REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a two justice dissent, determined that the motion to dismiss the breach and repudiation of contract cause of action should not have been granted. The decision is fact-specific and cannot fairly be summarized here. In essence, plaintiff alleged the defendant did not have the right under the contract to refuse to cooperate in the settlement of a claim for the full amount.  The majority concluded the language of the contract did not provide defendant with an unconditional and absolute right to refuse to cooperate by refusing to agree to certain reassignments of claims as part of the settlement:

Characterizing the assignment of the … claims as absolute and unconditional, the dissent … would hold that plaintiff did not have a contractual right to compel [defendant] to reassign those claims to a third party as a condition of a settlement that attributed no value to them. However, contrary to these findings, the assignment was not absolute and unconditional … . Guidance Enhanced Green Terrain, LLC v Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch, 2017 NY Slip Op 00068, 1st Dept 1-5-17

CONTRACT LAW (TERMS OF CONTRACT WERE NOT ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL, MOTION TO DIMSISS BREACH AND REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION.

The First Department determined defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on misdemeanor charges, even though conviction might result in deportation:

… “[A] defendant’s right to a jury trial attaches only to serious offenses, not to petty crimes, the determining factor being length of exposure to incarceration” … . “An offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less is presumed petty, unless the legislature has authorized additiona… l statutory penalties so severe as to indicate that the legislature considered the offense serious” … . Despite the gravity of the impact of deportation on a convicted defendant (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 [2010]), deportation consequences are still collateral ,,, , and do not render an otherwise petty offense “serious” for jury trial purposes.

Furthermore, under defendant’s approach, in order to decide whether to grant a jury trial to a noncitizen charged with B misdemeanors, the court would need to analyze the immigration consequences of a particular conviction on the particular defendant, and we find this to be highly impracticable. We note that the immigration impact of this defendant’s conviction is unclear. He is already deportable as an undocumented alien, and only claims that the conviction would block any hypothetical effort to legalize his status. People v Suazo,  1st Dept 1-3-172017 NY Slip Op 00030

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION)/JURY TRIALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION)

FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on both his Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Defendants argued that plaintiff’s failure to tie off a harness was the sole proximate cause for the accident (a fall from an elevated platform). The First Department found that defendants did not demonstrate plaintiff had been instructed where to tie off, and did not demonstrate plaintiff knew where to tie off:

Plaintiff established prima facie that while subjected to an elevation-related risk, he was injured due to defendants’ failure to provide him with proper fall protection, namely, an appropriate place to which to attach his harness. Anderson v MSG Holdings, L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 00002, 1st Dept 1-3-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTIO LAW (FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION)/HARNESS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION)

FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff slipped on accumulated dust and fell to the scaffolding surface (he did not fall off the scaffolding). The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because the fall was not related to the failure to provide a safety device. The Labor Law 200 cause of action was properly dismissed because the defendant’s general oversight of the worksite did not amount to supervisory control over the means or methods of plaintiff’s work:

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim was correctly dismissed since plaintiff’s injuries “result[ed] from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the danger that brought about the need for the safety device[s] in the first instance” … . Plaintiff does not point to any evidence that he was injured as a result of any attempts to avoid falling off the scaffold … . The accumulation of paint chips and dust on the platform on which plaintiff was working “was one of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site[,] to which the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) [do not] extend” … .

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were correctly dismissed since the evidence that defendant’s safety officer instructed plaintiff and his coworkers on safety rules, exercised general oversight over site safety, and conducted site walk-throughs does not establish that defendant exercised supervisory control over the means or methods of plaintiff’s work … . Serrano v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00003, 1st Dept 1-3-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/DUST (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 claims should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant provided him with a defective ladder (proper footing missing) and he was injured when the ladder slipped from under him. The court explained that the proper analysis, where the accident did not arise from the means or methods of work, is whether defendant created or had notice of the dangerous condition:

Where, as here, plaintiff alleged that defendants — the premises owners — provided him with the defective ladder, “the legal standard that governs claims under Labor Law § 200 is whether the owner created the dangerous or defective condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof,” not whether the accident arose out of the means and methods of plaintiff’s work … .

The conflicting deposition testimony submitted by the parties shows that there is a triable issue as to whether defendants provided plaintiff with the allegedly defective ladder. Moreover, plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder was missing its feet was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the defect because of its visible and apparent nature … . Jaycoxe v VNO Bruckner Plaza, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 00012, 1st Dept 1-3-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

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