You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

ARCHDIOCESE NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF NURSING HOME FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WORKED UNDER THE SINGLE-EMPLOYER DOCTRINE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department explained when employer liability can be imposed under the single-employer doctrine. Although not discussed in the decision, the underlying lawsuit appears to allege employment discrimination. Plaintiff sued the Archdiocese in addition to the nursing home for which she worked. The First Department determined the Archdiocese's motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

The single-employer doctrine and the four factor test used in its application were originally created by the NLRB to determine whether two intertwined entities should be treated as a single employer in the labor dispute context, and subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court … . The Second Circuit adopted the doctrine for the purpose of determining whether a parent company can be considered an employer for the purpose of employment discrimination liability … . While the four factor test analyzes (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor operations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership, the primary focus is on the second factor of centralized control of labor operations … . Centralized control of labor operations requires some showing of a central human resources department … . Here plaintiff fails to plead that the Archdiocese provided any human resources services for the nursing home, and plaintiff's allegations that church personnel regularly work at the nursing home, without more, do not suffice to show the Archdiocese controlled the Nursing Home Defendants's labor operations … . Batilo v Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05096, 1st Dept 6-28-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (ARCHDIOCESE NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF NURSING HOME FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WORKED UNDER THE SINGLE-EMPLOYER DOCTRINE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SINGLE EMPLOYER DOCTRINE (ARCHDIOCESE NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF NURSING HOME FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WORKED UNDER THE SINGLE-EMPLOYER DOCTRINE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED.

The First Department determined the trial court correctly found sanctions should be imposed on plaintiff (Arbor) for spoliation of evidence, but the dismissal of the complaint was too severe. The court offered a clear explanation of the relevant law:

“Failures which support a finding of gross negligence, when the duty to preserve electronic data has been triggered, include: (1) the failure to issue a written litigation hold []; (2) the failure to identify all of the key players and to ensure that their electronic and other records are preserved; and (3) the failure to cease the deletion of e-mail” … . Here, the motion court correctly determined that Arbor’s destruction of evidence was, at a minimum, gross negligence, since Arbor failed to institute a formal litigation hold until approximately two years after even Arbor admits it had an obligation to do so. The minutes further reveal the extent to which Arbor failed to identify all of the key players in the loan transaction, and failed to preserve their electronic records. Where, as here, the spoliation is the result of the plaintiff’s intentional destruction or gross negligence, the relevance of the evidence lost or destroyed is presumed … . Plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, the motion court properly determined an appropriate sanction should be imposed on plaintiff. However, the sanction must reflect “an appropriate balancing under the circumstances,” … . Generally, dismissal of the complaint is warranted only where the spoliated evidence constitutes “the sole means” by which the defendant can establish its defense … , or where the defense was otherwise “fatally compromised” … or defendant is rendered “prejudicially bereft” of its ability to defend as a result of the spoliation … . The record upon renewal does not support such a finding, given the massive document production and the key witnesses that are available to testify … . Accordingly, an adverse inference charge is an appropriate sanction under the circumstances … . Arbor Realty Funding, LLC v Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 05065, 1st Dept 6-28-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED)/SPOLIATION (DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED)

,

DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT.

The First Department determined a deed which was security for a debt constituted a mortgage. Therefore, foreclosure proceedings under the Real Property Law were triggered by default on the debt:

Real Property Law § 320 codifies the common-law principle that the giving of a deed to secure a debt, in whatever form and however structured, creates nothing more than a mortgage … . “The courts are steadfast in holding that a conveyance, whatever its form, if in fact given to secure a debt, is neither an absolute nor a conditional sale, but a mortgage, and that the grantor and grantee have merely the rights and are subject only to the obligations of mortgagor and mortgagee” … . “Significantly, the statute does not require a conclusive showing that the transfer was intended as security; it is sufficient that the conveyance appears to be intended only as a security in the nature of a mortgage” … . “In determining whether a deed was intended as security, examination may be made not only of the deed and a written agreement executed at the same time, but also of oral testimony bearing on the intent of the parties and to a consideration of the surrounding circumstances and acts of the parties” … . Patmos Fifth Real Estate Inc. v Mazl Bldg., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04804, 1st Dept 6-16-16

REAL PROPERTY LAW (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)/FORECLOSURE (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)/DEEDS (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)/MORTGAGES (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)

,

SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND MUST BE CHALLENGED ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT, NOT IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING.

The First Department determined that sex-offender certification is part of the judgment of conviction. Challenge to sex-offender certification, therefore, must be raised on appeal from the judgment and cannot be raised for the first time in a SORA risk-level determination:

Although this appeal from a risk level determination is not subject to dismissal, it does not bring up for review defendant’s claim that his underlying New York felony conviction was not for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender. Sex offender certification is part of the judgment of conviction, and the proper occasion for defendant to have challenged that certification was on an appeal from the judgment …, but defendant did not appeal. People v Miguel, 2016 NY Slip Op 04666, 1st Dept 6-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND MUST BE CHALLENGED ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT, NOT IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/APPEALS (SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND MUST BE CHALLENGED ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT, NOT IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACE (SORA) (SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND MUST BE CHALLENGED ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT, NOT IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/SORA (SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND MUST BE CHALLENGED ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT, NOT IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)

,

EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED; NOTICES OF MANDATORY MEETINGS REGARDING WORK-REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DID NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) although the finding that petitioner had violated work-related requirements under the family assistance program was reversed and the reduction in petitioner's benefits had been restored, the appeal was not moot; (2) the wording of the notices of required meetings for work-assessment under the family assistance program did not violate the Social Services Law; and (3) the propriety of the “autopost” system by which petitioner's failure to attend a scheduled meeting resulted in an automatically posted infraction must be determined in the context of a summary judgment or a trial (not this declaratory judgment action). The dissenters argued the appeal was moot and should not have been heard:

… [W]e find that the notices at issue do not violate the applicable regulatory scheme. In reviewing these notices, we are mindful that “[t]he standard for judicial review of an administrative regulation is whether the regulation has a rational basis and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious” … , or contrary to the statute under which it was promulgated … . The party challenging a regulation has the heavy burden of establishing that “it is so lacking in reason for its promulgation that it is essentially arbitrary” … . * * *

The regulation and notices closely track the statute, which focuses on how a recipient can demonstrate good cause for having failed to comply with work requirements. In fact, every requirement set forth in SSL § 341 is incorporated into the notices. The crux of Supreme Court's holding is that the regulation and notices do not satisfy a requirement that recipients be expressly told that they can avoid sanction by asserting compliance. The statute on its face, however, simply contains no such requirement. This is particularly true for the notice of decision, because SSL § 341(1)(b) does not require that the notice give examples of good cause. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot find that 18 NYCRR 385.11 and the notices were unreasonable or arbitrary. Matter of Puerto v Doar, 2016 NY Slip Op 04463, 1st Dept 6-9-16

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (NOTICES OF MANDATORY MEETINGS REGARDING WORK-REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DID NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW)/FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (NYC) (NOTICES OF MANDATORY MEETINGS REGARDING WORK-REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DID NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW)/APPEALS (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED; NOTICES OF MANDATORY MEETINGS REGARDING WORK-REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DID NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW)

AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVES A CLAIM FORM FROM THE MEDICAL PROVIDER.

The First Department, over a dissent, in a no-fault insurance case, determined plaintiff insurer's motion for summary judgment (dismissing the provider's claim for first-party no-fault benefits) based upon plaintiff's insured's (Manoo's) failure to appear for three scheduled examinations under oath (EUO's) should have been granted. The court held that an EUO can be requested at any time, and the fact that the first EUO was requested before the insurer received a claim form from the provider was of no consequence:

The record establishes that plaintiff requested Manoo's initial EUO by letter dated February 3, 2012. Although [the provider's] NF-3 form is dated February 7, 2012, plaintiff was entitled to request the EUO prior to its receipt thereof … . The notification requirements for verification requests under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 do not apply to EUOs that are scheduled prior to the insurance company's receipt of a claim form … . Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Manoo, 2016 NY Slip Op 04446, 1st Dept 6-9-16

INSURANCE LAW (AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVES A CLAIM FORM)/NO-FAULT INSURANCE (AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVES A CLAIM FORM)

BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff, McCrea, was repairing an elevator when it fell on him. The court explained the relevant law, including the criteria for demonstrating an injured worker's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injury:

The evidence here establishes that at the time of the accident, McCrea was engaged in “repair” work because the elevator's safety shoes were not operating properly, and the condition was an isolated event, unrelated to normal wear and tear … . In addition, the elevator was a “falling object” within the meaning of the Labor Law, even though it was not actually being hoisted or secured at the time of the accident, because it required securing for the purpose of McCrea's repair work … .

As plaintiff was engaged in activity protected by Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of the incident, Arnlie, as owner of the building, is subject to absolute liability for injuries which resulted from its failure to provide plaintiff with proper safety devices …, without regard to the comparative fault of plaintiff … . Where the worker is the sole proximate cause of the injury, however, the premises owner will not be liable … . “[T]o raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of an accident, the defendant must produce evidence that adequate safety devices were available, that the plaintiff knew that they were available and was expected to use them, and that the plaintiff unreasonably chose not to do so, causing the injury sustained” … .

Here, there is no indication that plaintiff refused or misused available safety equipment. McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04330, 1st Dept 6-7-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)/ELEVATORS (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)

,

FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined a federal conviction for failure to register as a sex offender was not a qualifying offense under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant had been convicted in Michigan of a qualifying offense, but was not subject to post-release supervision upon release. Where there is no post-release supervision, a defendant is assessed 15 points under the SORA risk analysis. Defendant argued that, because he was subject to federal post-release supervision for failure to register, the 15 points should not be assessed. The First Department held the only relevant offense was the Michigan offense, requiring the 15 point assessment. People v Reid, 2016 NY Slip Op 04366, 1st Dept 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE)

, ,

IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The First Department reversed defendant's conviction because the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony about the grand proceedings and the justification defense from an assistant district attorney (ADA) called as a prosecution witness. In addition, the prosecutor improperly referred to “facts” not in evidence during summation. The defendant was alleged to have fired at police officers who were pursuing him. The testimony of the ADA was elicited in anticipation of a defense the officers testified falsely in the grand jury to protect themselves from indictment for shooting defendant. However, the defendant never raised that defense. The ADA was improperly allowed to explain the justification defense (apparently to show the shooting by the officers was justified) and the grand jury procedure (apparently to demonstrate the grand jury found the officers credible):

Comments regarding grand jury composition and proceedings have repeatedly been held to be improper when made by a court, and the same rationale applies when made by a prosecutor … . * * *

By permitting the witness to instruct the jury on the law of justification during the People's case, and apply the law to the facts of this case, “the court improperly surrendered its nondelegable judicial responsibility” … . “The court's delegation of this critical judicial function to the [prosecutor-witness] significantly impaired the integrity of the proceedings and deprived the defendant of a fair trial” … . * * *

The prosecutor must “stay within the four corners of the evidence,” may not refer to matters not in evidence,” should not “call upon the jury to draw conclusions which are not fairly inferrable from the evidence,” or make arguments that “have no bearing on any legitimate issue in the case” … .

Here, on two separate occasions during his summation, the prosecutor did exactly that. People v Melendez, 2016 NY Slip Op 04328, 1st Dept 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

The First Department determined the admission of a machine generated blood test for sexually transmitted disease, without the testimony of the technician who operated the machine, did not violate the confrontation clause. The court distinguished a recent Court of Appeals case, People v John, 2016 NY Slip Op 03208, which held an analyst who draws conclusions from raw data must testify before the relevant test results can be admitted:

The lab report at issue here was of the purely “machine generated” category, and the witness whose testimony defendant claims was required was, at best, a technician who tested the accuracy of the machine before placing the sample in it for testing. Under People v John and the U.S. Supreme Court cases on which it relies, the report generated by the machine should not be treated as testimonial, and the absence of testimony by the technician who calibrated the machine did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. “[T]he testing and procedures employed . . . were neither discretionary nor based on opinion; nor did they concern the exercise of fallible human judgment over questions of cause and effect” … . In addition, contrary to defendant’s argument, the report did not directly link him to the crimes, since the “test results, standing alone, shed no light on the guilt of the accused” … , notwithstanding that they provided circumstantial evidence of guilt in light of other evidence. People v Alcivar, 2016 NY Slip Op 04329, 1st Dept 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST RESULTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)

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