You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN AN UNCERTIFIED, UNAUTHENTICATED REPORT FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS PROVIDED DID NOT CREATE AN ISSUE OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court in this hit and run traffic accident case, noted that hearsay statements in the Prehospital Care Report, which was not certified or authenticated, did not create an issue of fact:

The court improperly denied petitioner’s motion based on hearsay statements in the Prehospital Care Report, as the report was not certified or authenticated and no proper foundation was provided for it … . Therefore, the statements in the Prehospital Care Report cannot create an issue of fact. Even if it were appropriate to consider the report, it would “merely present[] an issue of fact to be resolved in the plenary action” since it is contradicted by the allegations in the petition, petitioner’s affidavit, the Household Affidavit, the motor vehicle accident report, and petitioner’s deposition testimony concerning whether there was contact between his bicycle and the hit and run vehicle … . Matter of Luna v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04521, First Dept 9-24-24

Practice Point: Hearsay statements in an uncertified, unauthenticated report for which no foundation was provided did not create an issue of fact.

 

THE FLOOR OF THE ELEVATOR WHERE PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS NOT A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the floor of an elevator is not a “passageway” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. Therefore the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action based upon an Industrial Code provision requiring that “passageways” be kept free from dirt, debris and other obstructions was inapplicable, However, the code provision requiring “floors” and “platforms” be kept free from scattered tools, etc., did apply to elevators:

Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim insofar as it was predicated on 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7 (e) (1). That regulation provides, as relevant here, “All passageways shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from any other obstructions or conditions which could cause tripping.” A passageway for purposes of this regulation “mean[s] a defined walkway or pathway used to traverse between discrete areas as opposed to an open area” … . The elevator in which plaintiff’s accident occurred cannot be considered a walkway or pathway, and therefore cannot constitute a passageway within the meaning of the regulation … . Smith v Extell W. 45th LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 04533, First Dept 9-24-24

Practice Point: The floor of the elevator where plaintiff’s accident occurred is not a “passageway” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. Therefore the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action alleging a violation of the “passageway” code provision should have been dismissed.

 

,

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF ALL NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES PROPERLY DENIED UNDER THE CYBERSECURITY EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s FOIL request for the email addresses of all New York City employees, determined the information was covered by the cybersecurity exemption from disclosure under FOIL. The petitioner is a foundation which seeks to inform those city employees who are public-employee-union members of their right to opt out of union membership:

… DCAS’s [NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services’] General Counsel “articulat[ed] a particularized and specific justification for denying access” … under the cybersecurity exemption by explaining that “disclosure would create a substantial risk to the information technology infrastructure of the City of New York, including computer hardware, software, and data.”

The City Cyber Command’s Deputy Chief Information Security Officer further explained that disclosing “all New York City employees’ email addresses would relinquish control of the City’s information technology assets and jeopardize the security of those assets and of City infrastructure” by “mak[ing] it substantially easier for threat actors to successfully attack City . . . employees” in “[p]hishing and other email-based attacks.” Phishing and other confidence-based attempts at fraud prey on a target’s trust. The other information sought herein concerning employee’s names, titles, and other employment-related information could be used in conjunction with an email address to dupe unsuspecting targets. Of course, we do not find that the Foundation has any intention of phishing or committing any other type of fraud; it seeks to advance its mission. We note these facts only to point out the risks that can ensue from mass release of public employee contact information should the information fall into the wrong hands.

For these reasons, DCAS “articulate[d] a legitimate concern covered by the exemption”— that disclosure of email addresses could “breach or compromise [the agency’s] information technology infrastructure” or enable attackers to “gain access to or manipulate information maintained by” DCAS … . Matter of Freedom Found. v New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs., 2024 NY Slip Op 04483, First Dept 9-19-24

Practice Point: Here the FOIL request for the email addresses of all NYC employees was properly denied under the cybersecurity exemption because of the possibility of “phishing and other email-based attacks.”​

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE, AS HERE, THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER DIFFERENTLY, THE COURT MUST AFFIRM AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S RULING WHICH HAS A RATIONAL BASIS; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PROOF PETITIONER RESIDED WITH HIS BROTHER IN THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT WAS SUFFICIENT AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have annulled the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) denial of petitioner’s application seeking succession rights to his brother’s Mitchell-Lama apartment. Even where, as here, the court reviewing an administrative agency’s ruling would have decided the matter differently, the ruling must be upheld if there is a rational basis for it:

A careful review of the record shows that HPD had a rational basis to affirm the denial of petitioner’s succession rights. Petitioner failed to meet his burden to produce documents that would establish his primary residence was the New York apartment. He never provided any tax returns or proof that he was not required to file, which is a necessary component of any succession rights application … . Instead, he argued for the first time in his petition that he was not required to file tax returns due to his low income. Petitioner cannot fault HPD for failing to consider an argument that was not raised before it. Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 2024 NY Slip Op 04484, First Dept 9-19-24

Practice Point: An administrative agency’s ruling must be affirmed by the reviewing court if there is a rational basis for it, even when the reviewing court would have decided the matter differently. Here the dissent agreed with Supreme Court and argued petitioner presented sufficient proof that he resided with his brother in a Mitchell-Lama apartment and was therefore entitled to succession rights. The majority, however, upheld the city housing agency’s denial of the petition.

 

,

THE OBSERVATIONS BY THE POLICE OF THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND A WOMAN WHO WAS A “KNOWN DRUG USER” PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST FOR A DRUG SALE; STRONG, EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, over an extensive dissent, determined the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for a drug sale based upon their observations of the interaction between defendant and a woman, “a known drug user,” outside a motel:

In determining whether probable cause exists in a drug sale case, courts must consider factors such as: “telltale signs” of a drug transaction (for example, an exchange of a glassine envelope for money); whether the area has a high incidence of drug trafficking; the police officer’s “experience and training” in drug sale investigations; and “additional evidence of furtive or evasive behavior on the part of the participants” … . Another factor to consider is an officer’s knowledge of a participant’s past involvement in drug crimes … . Here, in a locale known for drug sales, an experienced officer witnessed a woman who was a known drug user give defendant something, saw defendant put his hands into his pants, and saw defendant touch hands with the woman. Based upon this testimony, the hearing court properly found that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant. This peculiar interaction between defendant and the woman, under the circumstances, is not susceptible to innocent interpretation. People v Tapia, 2024 NY Slip Op 04487, First Dept 9-19-24

Practice Point: Here the police observed only body movements and did not see any identifiable objects exchanged between defendant and a woman who was “a known drug user.” The police saw the defendant and the woman “touch hands” and defendant had reached inside his pants before “touching hands” with the woman. The majority concluded the police had probable cause to arrest for a drug sale. There was a strong, extensive dissent.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MENTAL ILLNESS WARRANTED REDUCING DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE FOR ROBBERY TO THE MINIMUM, STRONG DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s sentence to the minimum for robbery, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, over a strong dissent, determined defendant’s (Mr. Sparks’) mental illness warranted a sentence reduction:

… [C]ontinued incarceration of Mr. Sparks serves none of the objectives of criminal punishment. In order to best protect the public, Mr. Sparks must get appropriate mental health treatment to rehabilitate him to a healthier mental state. His 12 years of imprisonment has only served to exacerbate his mental difficulties. There is no reason to believe that further incarceration will rehabilitate him, and the record clearly demonstrates that Mr. Sparks needs rehabilitation, not punitive incarceration.

Treating incarceration as the default response for individuals like Mr. Sparks has outsized deleterious consequences that, ultimately, make our communities less safe. As Chief Justice Wilson noted in his concurring opinion in People v Greene, “the cycle of incarceration further destabilizes these individuals; mental health treatment in prison is costlier than community-based treatment; individuals with mental illness are at greater risk of detention in prison and extended incarceration; prison mental health resources are often inadequate; and individuals living with mental illness face greater risk of harm and abuse while behind bars” (41 NY3d 950, 954 [2024] [Wilson, J. concurring]). While Greene involved a nonserious crime, the principle remains: default incarceration for crimes caused by mental illness is antithetical to the interests of our penal system. Deterrence cannot be accomplished for a person who was delusional at the time of a crime; and punishment for a person operating under delusions is not just. People v Sparks, 2024 NY Slip Op 04488, First Dept 9-19-24

Practice Point: The court here made the point that incarceration may not be the appropriate response for the mentally ill. The court noted that it has the power to reduce a defendant’s sentence for a violent crime, even when the defendant pleads guilty, based upon the defendant’s mental health.

 

,

FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering Family Court to expedite a Family Court Act Section 1028 hearing on mother’s application to have her children returned to her, determined the adjournments of the continuation of the hearing over a period of months violated section 1028:

Family Court Act § 1028 “provides for an expedited hearing to determine whether a child who has been temporarily removed from a parent’s care and custody should be reunited with that parent pending the ultimate determination of the child protective proceeding” … . Upon an application of a parent whose child has been temporarily removed, “[e]xcept for good cause shown, such hearing shall be held within three court days of the application and shall not be adjourned” … .

… [A]lthough the 1028 hearing commenced within three court days of the mother’s application, it did not proceed expeditiously. It is currently calendared with continued hearing dates through late October 2024, at which time the infant subject children will have spent more than half their lives in foster care. … The plain language of the statute requires expediency. Family Court Act § 1028 is distinguishable from other sections of article 10 wherein those sections call for hearings to be conducted within the Family Court’s discretion … . No such discretion is provided by the plain language of Family Court Act § 1028.

Under the specific time constraints detailed by the plain language of Family Court Act § 1028 and given the potential and persistent harms of family separation, the mother is entitled to prompt judicial review of the children’s removal “measured in hours and days, not weeks and months” … . Conducting this 1028 hearing over a period of 30 minutes of hearing time scheduled in March, four hours scheduled in April, three hours in May, and four hours in June cannot be deemed prompt or expeditious judicial review. Matter of Emmanuel C.F. (Patrice M. D. F.), 2024 NY Slip Op 04482, First Dept 9-19-24

Practice Point: Family Court does not have the discretion to keep adjourning a Family Court Act 1028 hearing on mother’s petition to have her children returned to her. Mother is entitled, by the terms of the statute, to an expedited hearing.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR BEFORE AND DURING THE TRAFFIC STOP DID NOT CREATE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” THE DEFENDANT WAS ARMED; THE FRISK AND SEIZURE OF SMALL PACKETS OF PCP FROM DEFENDANT’S SOCK WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a concurrence, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police, during a traffic stop, did not have “reasonable suspicion the suspect was armed” at the time defendant was frisked and small packets of PCP were seized from his sock, requiring suppression of the drugs. The concurrence argued that the evidence the officers smelled PCP provided “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to warrant a search, but, because Supreme Court did not credit that testimony, the appellate court could not consider it (the lower court’s ruling on that issue was not adverse to the defendant). The facts surrounding the traffic stop and frisk are too detailed to fully summarize here:

The issue presented is … “whether the circumstances in this case support a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous” … , thereby justifying the level three frisk. More precisely, the issue is whether Mr. Torres’s failure to produce his license and registration; his presentation as “nervous” and “fidgety”; the dark lighting under the Manhattan Bridge; the smell of PCP; and Officer McDevit’s observation that the van was shaking as he approached supports, in the totality, “a reasonable view that [defendant] was armed” … .

Ultimately, the circumstances here supported, at most, a level two intrusion to gain explanatory information but not an escalation to level three. Critically, Officer Galarza testified that when he asked Mr. Torres for his license and registration, Mr. Torres was “not able to produce [them].” It was “[a]t this point” that Officer Galarza had Mr. Torres “step out of the vehicle [] for [Officer Galarza’s] safety after [Officer Galarza] felt like [Mr. Torres] wasn’t compliant enough” with the request. * * *

… [A]lthough Mr. Torres’s failure to respond to Officer Galarza’s request for his license and registration “clearly served to heightened the suspicions of the officer” … and “represented a basis for further inquiry,” “it did not provide a predicate for reasonable suspicion to believe that [defendant] . . . [was] armed, thereby justifying a frisk” … . People v Torres, 2024 NY Slip Op 04442, First Dept 9-12-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s behavior before and during the traffic stop did not raise “reasonable suspicion” that he was armed. Therefore the frisk and seizure of drugs from his sock was not justified.

Practice Point: The concurrence argued the evidence that the officers smelled drugs (PCP) warranted a search. However, because the suppression court did not credit that evidence, the appellate court could not consider it.

 

,

A DEFENDANT WHO HAS WAIVED INDICTMENT CANNOT PLEAD GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WHICH INCLUDES AN OFFENSE GREATER THAN ANY CHARGED IN THE CORRESPONDING FELONY COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea to a superior court information (SCI), over a dissent, determined an SCI cannot include an offense greater than any offense charged in the felony complaint. Here the SCI “charged [defendant] with a higher level offense than any contained in the felony complaint, that is, robbery in the third degree is a class D felony, whereas grand larceny in the fourth degree, the highest offense charged in the felony complaint is an class E felony:”

Neither the Court of Appeals nor this Court has directly addressed the issue now before us: whether an SCI that charges an offense for which a defendant was held for action of a grand jury can also, under CPL 195.20 and consistent with New York Constitution article I, § 6, charge a joinable offense of a higher grade or degree than any contained in the felony complaint. * * *

… [T]he New York Constitution article I, § 6 permits prosecution pursuant to an SCI only for “an offense” for which a defendant has been “held for the action of a grand jury”. Such an “offense” includes “the lesser included offenses as well as a greater offense charged in the felony complaint” … , but does not include a greater offense, not charged in the felony complaint, which has additional aggravating elements … . Permitting inclusion in an SCI of an offense of a higher grade than any charged in the felony complaint “would permit circumvention of” the “constitutional imperative” of prosecution by indictment … . People v Perkins, 2024 NY Slip Op 04361, First Dept 9-5-24

Practice Point: Here, a defendant, who waived indictment, pled to a superior court information (SCI) which included an offense greater than any in the corresponding felony complaint. The inclusion in the SCI of an offense greater than any for which the defendant was held for indictment violates the NYS Constitution.

 

, ,

THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIES EVEN WHERE A NEW ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A PRIOR ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosado, determined the relation-back doctrine applied to the wrongful death action against Dr. Ozcan and reinstated that cause of action. The court noted that the relation-back doctrine applies where, as here, a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action:

Dr. Ozcan does not substantively dispute that the claims in the prior and instant actions arose out of the same conduct or that she is united in interest with Montefiore [Medical Center]. Therefore, the only question to be decided, is whether the third prong of the relation-back doctrine has been established.

Dr. Ozcan, who was named as a defendant in the First Action, should have known that, but for a mistake, the wrongful death claim would have been brought against her as well … .

Application of the relation-back doctrine is proper even where, as here, a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action … . Picchioni v Sabur, 2024 NY Slip Op 04362, First Dept 9–5-24

Practice Point: The relation-back doctrine applies to render an action timely brought even where a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action.

 

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