You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED.

The First Department affirmed defendant’s conviction because he pled guilty before the court ruled on his suppression motion. Suppression therefore could not be considered on appeal. However, the court determined there was no justification for a strip search and warrantless body-cavity search:

… [T]here is merit to defendant’s claim that the police lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search. The record showed only that defendant was arrested during a buy-and-bust operation in a drug-prone location. Defendant was not observed reaching into his pants and no drugs were found on his clothing. “The police officers’ generalized knowledge that drug sellers often keep drugs in their buttocks, and the fact that no drugs were found in a search of defendant’s clothing [a]re insufficient” … .

There is also merit to defendant’s claim that the strip and visual body cavity search were not conducted in a reasonable manner and without a warrant or exigent circumstances. The record shows that defendant had his clothing torn from his body and was searched in the presence of four or five officers, belying the imperative to seek out “utmost privacy, and in the presence of only those members of the service reasonably necessary to conduct the search” to “achieve a balance between the privacy and personal dignity concerns of the [arrestee],” as set forth in the provisions of the NYPD Patrol Guide (Procedure No. 208.5[C][4] [2013]) concerning strip search procedures. The violence of the search — which resulted in physical injury to defendant requiring transfer to the hospital — was unnecessary particularly given that defendant was not being charged with a violent offense.

Further, the record indicates that defendant was very likely subjected to a warrantless [*2]manual cavity search of his rectum … . Potential dissemination or destruction of drugs was not a concern where defendant was already in a secure cell with five officers watching him … . People v Durham, 2016 NY Slip Op 08438, 1st Dept 12-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/STRIP SEARCH (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/BODY CAVITY SEARCH (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)

DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that defendant’s family was improperly excluded from the courtroom:

Defendant’s family members were improperly excluded from the closed courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. It is undisputed that the evidence presented at a Hinton hearing did not demonstrate that the “exclusion of [defendant’s family members was] necessary to protect the interest advanced by the People in support of closure” … . The People ask us to interpret the record as indicating that the court did not, in fact, exclude defendant’s relatives. While the record arguably presents a degree of ambiguity in this regard, in that both the prosecutor, in the course of his argument about the officer’s efforts to conceal his identity, and the court, in discussing its decision, mentioned “the general public,” these ambiguous and equivocal indications are insufficient to persuade us that defendant’s family members were in fact allowed to be present.

The prosecutor requested that the courtroom be closed “entirely,” without making any specific provision for family members, and asserted that the closure requested was not “overly broad.” Defense counsel specifically asserted the right of the family members to be present. The court then granted the People’s application, making no specific allowance or arrangements for the family members to attend. Under these circumstances, we cannot fairly read the record to indicate that the presence of family members was permitted. People v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 08447, 1st Dept 12-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED)/CLOSURE OF COURTROOM (DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, despite the finding by the Workers’ Compensation Board that plaintiff was not an employee entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits from the general contractor. Plaintiff was found to be an independent contractor legitimately working at the site. The definitions of employer and employee in the Labor Law and Workers’ Compensation Law are different:

The sole issue at the workers’ compensation hearing was whether plaintiff was an employee of [the general contractor] as to be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The sole finding made by the ALJ was that plaintiff was an “independent contractor” not entitled to receive workers’ compensation. The ALJ made no determination as to the scope of that work. … Plaintiff testified that he was injured when a scaffold collapsed underneath him while he was helping to load a container with construction debris.

[The owner] fails to point to any evidence demonstrating that plaintiff was not “employed” on the premises on the date of the accident, and therefore, fails to raise a triable issue of fact. Having established that he was “employed” within the meaning of the Labor Law, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his section 240(1) claim. Vera v Low Income Mktg. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08318, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 240(6) CAUSES OF ACTION, HEAVY MOTORIZED PALLET JACK SLID ON WATER ON A DESCENDING RAMP.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff was guiding a heavy motorized pallet jack carrying concrete blocks down a ramp to a lower level of the building under construction. The ramp was wet and the pallet jack slid, running over plaintiff’s foot. The fact that the load was not being hoisted or secured at the time of the accident did not preclude recovery. The pallet itself was deemed a safety device that failed in an elevation-related accident:

Plaintiff’s testimony here established that his accident was proximately caused by the combination of the traction-reducing water condition and the slope, which caused the heavy, loaded pallet jack to slide downhill while the breaking [sic] mechanism was rendered useless. The jack, with its built-in braking mechanism, failed to provide him adequate protection against the gravity-related risk inherent in transporting the heavy load down the water-covered ramp. Therefore, defendants failed “to provide adequate protection against” the risk that was created in part by the ” significant elevation differential'” of the ramp … . Landi v SDS William St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08340, 1st Dept 12-13-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 240(6) CAUSES OF ACTION, HEAVY MOTORIZED PALLET JACK SLID ON WATER ON A DESCENDING RAMP)/PALLET JACK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 240(6) CAUSES OF ACTION, HEAVY MOTORIZED PALLET JACK SLID ON WATER ON A DESCENDING RAMP)

LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, EVENT NOT RELATED TO THE FORCE OF GRAVITY.

The First Department determined summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff was cutting a steel beam when it sprang up, striking him in the face. The event was not related to the force of gravity:

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim was correctly dismissed, because the record demonstrates that plaintiff’s injuries were not the result of a failure to provide proper protection against “the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … , but rather the result of the propulsion of the vertical beam upward by “the kinetic energy of the sudden release of tensile stress in the [beam]” … . Quishpi v 80 WEA Owner, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08324, 1st Dept 12-13-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, EVENT NOT RELATED TO THE FORCE OF GRAVITY)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

The First Department determined there were questions of fact whether defendant (Premiere) exercised sufficient control over the work to be liable as an agent of the owner and general contractor pursuant to Labor Law 200. Plaintiff, who worked for the building where the work was being done, tripped over a worker’s tool bag which had been left in the vicinity of a staircase. The decision gives some insight into the level of control and supervision necessary for Labor Law 200 liability:

Given its responsibilities regarding the construction work – responsibilities that resemble those of a construction manager – there are issues of fact as to whether Premiere was a statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, i.e., whether it exercised general control over the work site … , rather than the exclusive control that it claims on appeal. Premiere CEO Grimes’s testimony supports plaintiff’s claim that Premiere exercised general control over the work site. Not only did Grimes hire and schedule the repair people and oversee the quality of their work, but he also interacted with construction teams on a day-to-day basis, told them if he was displeased with work, made decisions about the work, and reminded the teams to move materials around to insure clear access to apartments and stairways. He was authorized to shut down the job “if there was a dangerous or unsafe condition,” and before plaintiff’s injury he and the superintendent spoke with … workers about not leaving tools and construction dust in the common areas. From theses facts, a jury could find that Premiere exercised general control. Burgos v Premiere Props., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08317, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR)

, , ,

SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that fraud-related actions against defendant Credit Suisse (stemming from the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities [RMBS]) were governed by the six-year, not three-year statute of limitations. The actions were brought pursuant to the Martin Act and Executive Law 63(12). Those statutes were deemed to have codified common law causes of action. Therefore the six-year statute (CPLR 213), not the three-year statute (CPLR 214) applies:

Where claims are “to recover upon a liability . . . created or imposed by statute” (CPLR 214[2]), and the liability, although akin to common-law causes, “would not exist but for [the] statute” … , the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214(2) applies … . In contrast, where a statute “merely codifies and affords new remedies for what in essence is a common-law … claim[,]” CPLR 214(2) does not apply and “the Statute of Limitations for the statutory claim is that for the common-law cause of action which the statute codified or implemented”(id. at 208).

In the complaint, the Attorney General alleges, inter alia, that defendants’ fraud was their failure to abide by their representations that they had carefully evaluated and would continue to monitor the quality of the loans underlying their RMBS, and that they would encourage loan originators to implement sound origination practices. Instead, defendants routinely ignored defects discovered in their due diligence reviews and did not seek to influence originators to utilize appropriate origination practices, choosing instead to misuse their quality control process to obtain significant monetary settlements from originators, which defendants improperly kept for themselves. People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08339, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/FRAUD (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/CRIMINAL LAW (SECURITIES FRAUD, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/MARTIN ACT (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/STATUTE OF LIMITATION (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63),RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)

REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR REDACTION AND SEALING EXPLAINED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined redacted documents filed in connection with one lawsuit, and the entirely sealed record of a second lawsuit should be fully disclosed and available to the media (the intervenors here):

This Court has previously held that there is a “broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” … . The right of public access includes the right of the press to read and review court documents, unless those documents have been sealed pursuant to a statutory provision or by a properly issued sealing order. To allow them to assert their interests here, the proposed intervenors should be allowed to intervene in both actions for the limited purpose of obtaining access to court records … .

Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the rule … , “the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access” … . Having reviewed the record, we see no basis to seal the entire court record in the second action; therefore, we vacate the sealing order. It appears that the motion court sealed the second action because the parties stipulated to it. Before sealing, the motion court should have made its own written finding of good cause, as is required by the provisions of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 216.1(a) … . Maxim Inc. v Feifer, 2016 NY Slip Op 08319, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR REDACTION AND SEALING EXPLAINED)/SEALING-REDACTION OF COURT RECORDS (CIVIL, REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR REDACTION AND SEALING EXPLAINED)

,

JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the driver who caused the injury to plaintiff’s leg was properly excluded from the verdict sheet in this medical malpractice action. Only the treatment of the leg injury (amputation) was before the jury, not the original injury:

[T]he court [did not] err in denying defendants’ request to place the driver of the vehicle that struck plaintiff, who settled prior to institution of the instant action, on the verdict sheet. Defendants are subsequent tortfeasors, and the jury was correctly charged that its award was to be limited to the exacerbation of the original injury caused by malpractice … . Defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s original injury and subsequent amputation were indivisible is without merit, in that the experts testified as to what the condition of the leg would have been if it had been saved … . Defendants’ arguments concerning General Obligations Law § 15-108 are academic, given that the court reduced the judgment based upon the settlement received by the settling driver. Marin v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08294, 1st Dept 12-8-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET)

, ,

STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE.

The First Department determined that a statement by an unidentified bystander, audible on the 911 call, was properly admitted as an excited utterance. The court noted that another judge, who became ill, had ruled the statement inadmissible. Because it was an evidentiary ruling, it was not subject to the law of the case doctrine:

The court providently admitted, as an excited utterance, the statement of an unidentified bystander, audible on the 911 call made by one of the victims, that implicated defendant. All of the circumstances — most significantly that the statement was made immediately after the shooting — established a strong likelihood that the declarant observed the shooting … .

Although a contrary ruling on the excited utterance issue had been made by a previous judge, who presided over part of jury selection but was unable to continue because of illness, this circumstance did not foreclose the successor judge’s ruling by operation of the law of the case doctrine. The ruling was evidentiary and did not fall within the ambit of that doctrine (see People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499 [2000]). Defendant does not dispute that this was the type of ruling that, under Evans , may be revisited by a successor judge in a retrial. We see no reason to apply a different rule where there are successive judges in the same trial … . People v Cummings, 2016 NY Slip Op 08298, 1st Dept 12-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/EXCITED UTTERANCE  (STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/HEARSAY (EXCITED UTTERANCE, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)

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