You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED.

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from a Baker’s scaffold that had no side rails. Although hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, the motion will not be defeated by hearsay alone (the case here). The court noted that the plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcript was properly considered because it was certified by the reporter, its accuracy was not challenged by the defendant, and plaintiff adopted it as accurate by submitting it:

Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim where he fell from a six-foot-high Baker’s scaffold, which he was directed to use in order to plaster a ceiling. The record shows that the scaffold “had no side rails, and no other protective device was provided to protect him from falling off the sides” … . …

… [T]he statement in the affidavit of [defendant’s] owner that a subcontractor had assured him that the subcontractor had instructed all his employees to use the lifeline, belt and harness is insufficient raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause for disregarding such an instruction … . While hearsay may be considered in opposition to defeat a summary judgment motion if it is not the only evidence upon which opposition to the motion is predicated, because it was the only evidence establishing that plaintiff disregarded an instruction to use the safety devices, it is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion … . Chong v 457 W. 22nd St. Tenants Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07997, 1st Dept 11-29-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SCAFFOLDS (FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff fell from a scaffold which did not have safety railings. Any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part (not locking the wheels) was irrelevant:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim by presenting undisputed evidence that he “fell off a scaffold without guardrails that would have prevented his fall” … . Plaintiff’s alleged “failure to use the locking wheel devices and his movement of the scaffold while standing on it” were at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Celaj v Cornell, 2016 NY Slip Op 07996, 1st Dept 11-29-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/SCAFFOLDS (SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

, ,

MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined (1) plaintiff’s misrepresentation cause of action was properly dismissed because of a lack of specificity in the allegations, (2) the cause of action should not have been dismissed with prejudice, (3) and the specificity provided in the appellate briefs may support an amended complaint. Plaintiff, a stock insurance company, alleged it was induced to insure collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s) by misrepresentations made by Bear Stearns:

[P]laintiff CIFG Assurance North America, Inc., a stock insurance company, alleges that Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., a predecessor of defendant J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, made material misrepresentations that induced CIFG to provide financial guaranty insurance in connection with two collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). According to CIFG, Bear Stearns had on its books a large number of high-risk residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs), and embarked on a scheme to rid itself of these toxic assets by offloading them into the two CDOs, and marketing the CDOs’ securities to investors. * * *

… [T]he claim should not have been dismissed with prejudice, but rather, CIFG should be given the opportunity to replead. A request for leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given, and denied only if there is prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay, or if the proposed amendment is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” … . CIFG Assur. N. Am., Inc. v J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08029, 1st Dept 11-29-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (STOCK INSURANCE, MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/SECURITIESMISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE/FRAUD (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES  (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)

,

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

The First Department determined a new liability trial was necessary in a personal injury case because of erroneous evidentiary rulings. The trial court allowed into evidence internal rules (apparently dealing with the operation of a subway train) which imposed a higher standard of care than that required by the common law:

The court erred in admitting into evidence portions of defendant’s internal rules, which imposed a higher standard of care than required by common law … . Moreover, the prejudice to defendant was heightened by plaintiff’s expert’s reading of those internal rules to the jury.

The court also erred in allowing plaintiff’s counsel to question defendant’s train operator about his discussions with counsel. Sebhat v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07872, 1st Dept 11-22-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/STANDARD OF CARE (ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF THE FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT.

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall and any defect that might have existed was deemed trivial:

Defendants established prima facie that any defect in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall was insignificant and that there were no surrounding circumstances that magnified the dangers it posed … . They submitted plaintiff’s testimony that he could not describe the characteristics of the alleged defect or specify exactly where on the sidewalk he fell, and an affidavit by an expert who took photographs and measured the area and found no defect presenting an elevation differential of more than one quarter inch and no space between sidewalk slabs greater than one half inch. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the photographs were taken and the inspection performed almost two years after the accident is immaterial. Defendants submitted testimony that there had been no repairs to the sidewalk since the accident, and plaintiff does not argue that the photographs do not show the sidewalk in substantially the same condition as existed at the time of the accident.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. He was unable to describe the defect, except to say that it was not wide and it was not deep, and he cites no surrounding circumstances that enhanced the danger. Nor did he offer any measurements of the alleged defects in the area of his fall in refutation of defendants’ expert’s measurements. Saab v CVS Caremark Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07763, 1st Dept 11-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/TRIVIAL DEFECTS (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)

FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was knocked off the back of a flatbed truck. The Labor Law 241(6) cause of action was properly dismissed (no sufficiently specific industrial code regulation applied). And defendants’ control over the injury-producing work was insufficient to support the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

The injured plaintiff testified that a metal beam, while being placed on a flatbed truck, fell off the blades of a forklift, slamming plaintiff’s foot and causing him to fall off the truck. This unrefuted testimony established prima facie that “plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” and therefore that liability exists under Labor Law § 240(1) … . The cases that defendants rely on are inapposite, since they involve not objects falling on or toward workers on flatbeds but workers falling from flatbeds, implicating only the adequacy of safety devices for falling workers, which is not at issue here … .

Nor was plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his injuries since the injuries “were caused at least in part by the lack of safety devices to check the beam’s descent as well as the manner in which [his coworker] lowered the beam” … . McLean v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07754, 1st Dept 11-17-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/FLATBED TRUCK (LABOR LAW, (FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The First Department, affirming a neglect finding, explained that appellant was properly found to be “a person legally responsible for the subject child:”

A person legally responsible for a child is defined as the child’s “custodian, guardian, or any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time.” A “[c]ustodian may include any person continually or at regular intervals found in the same household as the child when the conduct of such person causes or contributes to the . . . neglect of the child” (Family Ct Act § 1012[g]). A person who “acts as the functional equivalent of a parent in a familial or household setting” is a person legally responsible for a child’s care … .

The determination of whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a discretionary, fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the circumstances in each case. Factors to be considered include the frequency and nature of the contact, the nature and extent of the control exercised by appellant over the child’s environment, the duration of appellant’s contact with the child, and appellant’s relationship with the child’s parent … .

Appellant testified that he cared for the younger children every work day by taking them to school and picking them up, preparing meals, cleaning the home, preparing the children’s clothing, grocery shopping, and providing financial assistance to the household. The school social worker and appellant both testified that M.W. lived in the home in September 2014, when the incident took place. Although appellant later changed his testimony concerning her residence, the court properly credited his initial statement and found that he was a person legally responsible for M.W. Given her age, she did not require the same hands-on care as the younger children, but his testimony reflected that he contributed to the functioning of the household of which she was a part and had frequent regular contact with her … . Matter of Keniya G. (Avery P.), 2016 NY Slip Op 07752, 1st Dept 11-17-16

 

FAMILY LAW (APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/NEGLECT (APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

The First Department determined the conclusory allegations in defendant’s motion to suppress were sufficient, under the circumstances, to warrant a suppression hearing:

In People v Wynn (117 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2014]), we held that the court erred in summarily denying the motion of defendant’s codefendant to suppress statements and physical evidence as the fruits of an unlawful arrest, notwithstanding the conclusory nature of the factual allegations in her suppression motion, where “[a]lthough the People provided defendant with extensive information about the facts of the crime and the proof to be offered at trial, they provided no information whatsoever, at any stage of the proceedings, about how defendant came to be a suspect, and the basis for her arrest, made hours after the crime at a different location” (id. at 487-488). Because the factual allegations in the People’s pleadings and relevant disclosures were materially the same in this case, we conclude that defendant’s motion to suppress, although it asserted nothing more than that probable cause was lacking, was sufficient under the circumstances to entitle him to a hearing. Unlike the situation in People v Lopez (5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]), defendant’s statement did not “on its face show[] probable cause for defendant’s arrest.” People v Terry, 2016 NY Slip Op 07751, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (STATEMENTS, PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS)

INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.

The First Department determined the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment relieving them of liability for the costs of a tax audit should have been granted. In a stock purchase agreement (SPA) plaintiffs agreed to indemnify Dearborn for costs associated with tax audits relating to any time up until the closing date. Dearborn had been sold by plaintiffs to a third party. A tax audit of Dearborn was conducted resulting in a $2.2 million tax assessment. In violation of the SPA, Dearborn did not notify plaintiffs of the tax audit. The SPA provided that the failure to notify would be actionable only to the extent plaintiffs were prejudiced by it. The issue before the First Department was whether the prejudice must be economic loss, or whether the inability to control the defense of the tax audit was sufficient. Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department held the deprivation of the right to control the defense of the audit was sufficient:

What we must determine, therefore, is the standard that plaintiffs must meet to demonstrate that the untimely notice of the second audit that they received caused them actual prejudice, and whether, on this record, that standard has been met. We agree with plaintiffs that, contrary to the view of Supreme Court and the position of defendants, in view of their “sole right” under the SPA to “control” the defense of the second audit (expressly including the rights to choose counsel and to settle), plaintiffs need not establish “tangible economic injury” to show that they have been actually prejudiced by the late notice … . Rather, to establish actual prejudice due to late notice, it suffices for an indemnitor afforded the right to control the defense of an idemnifiable claim to show that it was deprived of its right to exercise that right for a material portion of the proceedings on the claim. Conergics Corp. v Dearborn Mid-West Conveyor Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 07750, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT IS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT)/INDEMNIFICATION (INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT)

, ,

42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint by adding named police officers (previously listed in the complaint as John or Jane Doe) as defendants was properly denied. The statute of limitations for civil rights violation under 18 USC 1983 had passed. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued the relation-back doctrine applied because there was a unity of interest between the city defendant and the named police officers:

Plaintiffs argue that Officers Crocitto and Palmerini are united in interest with the City of New York, one of the original defendants, because the officers are employees of the City. It is undisputed, however, that the City cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983. Rather, the City can be held liable under 42 USC § 1983 only for violating that statute through an unconstitutional official policy or custom … . Thus, it simply cannot be said that the fortunes in this action of the City and of either Officer Crocitto or Officer Palmerini “stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Because the City has no vicarious liability for Officers Crocitto’s and Palmerini’s alleged misconduct under 42 USC § 1983, the two officers are not united in interest with the City with respect to the federal false arrest and excessive force claims against them, and the interposition of those claims against the officers does not relate back to the commencement of the action against the City for purposes of the statute of limitations. Higgins v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07748, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/CIVIL RIGHTS (18 USC 1983) (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/POLICE OFFICERS (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)

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