You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

WIFE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION SEEKING THE TURNOVER OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT AGAINST HUSBAND; HER SEPARATE PROPERTY, AS OPPOSED TO MARITAL PROPERTY, COULD NOT BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR.

The First Department determined the wife in a divorce proceeding, Wendy, should have been allowed to intervene in an action against her husband, Hugh, by plaintiff, Pensmore, seeking the turnover and sale of personal property to enforce a money judgment. Wendy submitted proof supporting her claim that the personal property in her possession was her separate property, not marital property, and therefore could not be reached by the creditor:

As a preliminary matter, we agree with Wendy that because Hugh was not in physical possession of the property which is the subject of the turnover order, the enforcement proceeding should have been brought as a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225(b). Wendy was required to have been named as a party and separately served with the petition, because she is the one in actual possession of the disputed property (CPLR 5225[b] McKinney's Practice Commentary, 5225.5). Although Pensmore did not properly name Wendy, the error could have been cured by permitting Wendy to intervene, so long as the burden of proof remained on the judgment creditor (Pensmore) to establish that the judgment debtor (Hugh) has an interest in the property that is superior to the person in actual possession (Wendy) … .

The trial court was required to hold a hearing to determine whether the personal property in Wendy's possession is her sole separate property or marital property. * * *

While … an inchoate right to equitably share in marital property cannot be protected against third party creditors of a debtor spouse … , the same rule does not hold true for separate property of the non-debtor spouse. Domestic Relations Law § 236[B] provides that “all property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement of a matrimonial action, regardless of the form in which title is held” is marital property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B][1][c]…). There is an exception, however, for “property acquired before marriage or property acquired by bequest, devise, or descent, or gift from a party other than the spouse;” such property is the separate property of that spouse (DRL § 236 [B][1][d]…). Separate property, is not “marital property” and it is not equitably distributed in a divorce action … . Although neither spouse has a vested interest in any property that is otherwise marital until it is distributed in a divorce action, separate property, unless transmuted or commingled, retains its character as the property of the spouse who owns it both during and after the marriage … . Pensmore Invs., LLC v Gruppo, Levey & Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01789, 1st Dept 3-15-16

FAMILY LAW (SEPARATE PROPERTY OF A NON-DEBTOR SPOUSE, AS OPPOSED TO MARITAL PROPERTY, CAN NOT BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR)/PERSONAL PROPERTY (SEPARATE PROPERTY OF A NON-DEBTOR SPOUSE, AS OPPOSED TO MARITAL PROPERTY, CAN NOT BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (SEPARATE PROPERTY OF A NON-DEBTOR SPOUSE, AS OPPOSED TO MARITAL PROPERTY, CAN NOT BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NON-DEBTOR SPOUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN ACTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT AGAINST DEBTOR-HUSBAND)/INTERVENE, MOTION TO (NON-DEBTOR SPOUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN ACTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT AGAINST DEBTOR-HUSBAND)

,

UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined defendant's pre-trial request to represent himself was properly denied because the request raised a significant potential for obstruction and diversion. The request was made after the People rested in a suppression hearing:

… [T]he court properly denied defendant's request to represent himself. Although a request to proceed pro se at trial is generally deemed timely if asserted before trial (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]), defendant here waited until after the People had rested in the suppression hearing before requesting to proceed pro se within that hearing, raising a significant “potential for obstruction and diversion” (id.). Accordingly, the court properly denied defendant's request in the absence of “compelling circumstances” (id.). We note that, over the course of the proceedings, defendant was represented by a total of seven retained or assigned attorneys, and repeatedly changed his mind about whether to represent himself. People v Franklin, 2016 NY Slip Op 01781, 1st Dept 3-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED)

,

COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE COMPLAINTS STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined two class action complaints alleging defendants supplied heating oil of lesser quality than that called for by the contracts should not have been dismissed. The complaints alleged waste oil had been mixed with the No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oil which was ordered. Certain detrimental effects of burning the mixed fuel were alleged. The First Department held that the “no injury” products liability cases relied upon by the motion court did not apply. Rather the case presented breach of contract/warranty issues:

Plaintiffs essentially allege that, consistent with the ASTM specifications, as well as common commercial usage, and pursuant to the UCC, customers purchasing goods described as No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oil are entitled to presume that they are receiving 100% fuel oil of the specified grade, and not a product consisting of a blend of No. 4 or No. 6 fuel oil with some other types of oil that do not meet the criteria of those ASTM specifications. * * *

Under UCC 2-714(2), the measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of the goods warranted … . Since we must infer from the complaint that plaintiffs received nonconforming oil deliveries of lesser value than those they contracted and paid for, causes of action for breach of contract and breach of warranty — including plaintiffs' damages — are stated in each action. BMW Group, LLC v Castle Oil Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01790, 1st Dept 3-15-16

CONTRACT LAW (COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY)/UCC (COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY)/FUEL OIL  (COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY)

, ,

SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD.

The First Department, in a case remitted by the Court of Appeals, determined the six-year statute of limitations applied to “breach of fiduciary duty” causes of action because fraud allegations were at the heart of the claims. Where, as here, a “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action seeks monetary damages and not equitable relief, the three-year statute of limitations usually applies. However, where, as here, allegations of fraud are central to the fiduciary duty cause of action, the six-year statute of limitations applies:

… [A] cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations of actual fraud is subject to a six-year limitations period” … . An exception to this rule exists ” if the fraud allegation is only incidental to the claim asserted'” … . Thus, “where an allegation of fraud is not essential to the cause of action pleaded except as an answer to an anticipated defense of Statute of Limitations, courts look for the reality, and the essence of the action and not its mere name” … .

Here, although the fiduciary duty claims seek monetary relief, the six-year limitations period applies because the claims sound in fraud. Cusimano v Schnurr, 2016 NY Slip Op 01758, 1st Dept 3-15-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD)/FRAUD (SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD)/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD)

,

RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES VIOLATED BY INTRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED; ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER.

Although the error was deemed harmless, the First Department determined defendant’s right to confront the witness against him was violated. The witness’s grand jury testimony was read to the jury as past recollection recorded. However, because the witness asserted his fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, the truth of the grand jury testimony could not be tested by cross-examination. The First Department explained the relevant law:

Provided that a proper foundation is laid, grand jury testimony may be admitted as past recollection recorded, and its admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause where the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination …, because “when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements” … . However, this may not apply when a witness appears at trial but invokes the Fifth Amendment … . Not every instance in which a witness invokes the privilege against self-incrimination will give rise to a Confrontation Clause violation; rather, “the Sixth Amendment is violated only when assertion of the privilege undermines the defendant’s opportunity to test the truth of the witness’ direct testimony” … .

Here, the witness asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions that had a direct bearing on testing the truth of his grand jury testimony. Thus, the witness’s extensive assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights regarding the material facts “undermine[d] the process to such a degree that meaningful cross-examination within the intent of the [Confrontation Clause] no longer exist[ed]” … .  People v Rahman, 2016 NY Slip Op 01750, 1st Dept 3-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES VIOLATED BY INTRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, WITNESS ASSERTED FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AVOID SELF-INCRIMINATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES VIOLATED BY INTRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, WITNESS ASSERTED FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AVOID SELF-INCRIMINATION)

,

SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMEDY THE INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY.

The First Department determined defendant's waiver of appeal was invalid because the oral colloquy was insufficient. The signed written waiver did not fix the inadequate colloquy:

… [T]he Court never advised defendant of the consequences of the appeal waiver, or spoke to defendant to ensure he understood the rights he was forfeiting by signing the waiver … . Although defendant signed a written waiver, this “was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal” … . Furthermore, the written waiver says that defendant was “advised by the Court of the nature of the rights being waived,” but that never occurred. Rather, the court told defense counsel to explain the waiver of appeal to defendant, and following an off-the-record conference between defendant and his counsel, counsel indicated defendant had signed the waiver. Counsel's confirmation that he told defendant about the waiver cannot substitute for the court conducting its own inquiry. People v Harris, 2016 NY Slip Op 01741, 1st Dept 3-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL, WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL, SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)

,

PLAINTIFF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER ALLOWED TO REPLEAD DIRECT CLAIMS UNDER CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW AGAINST THE CORPORATION STEMMING FROM DISPROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BETWEEN DIRECTORS AND PLAINTIFF.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined two causes of action which improperly alleged both direct and derivative claims by a shareholder against the corporation were properly dismissed but could be repled to make direct claims under Cayman Islands law. The dissent argued leave to replead was not warranted by the facts alleged:

Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to replead to remedy the pleading deficiencies … . Although a challenge to a decision to pay dividends would generally be derivative, plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that his claim is direct because the disproportionate payment of dividends is discriminatory and directly harmed him as a minority shareholder. Thus, rather than corporate mismanagement, plaintiff asserts unequal treatment in the form of an intentional, premeditated plan to pay the Investors huge windfall dividends while freezing out minority shareholders in order to induce them to sell their shares to the Investors at a steep discount. * * *

… [P]laintiff should [also] be given leave to replead to separate his direct claim of being induced by the Directors to part with his common shares … for less than their true value from his derivative claim alleging harm to the company … , and to set forth facts to establish the special circumstances necessary under Cayman Islands law to create a fiduciary duty between the Directors and plaintiff as a minority shareholder. Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 01756, 1st Dept 3-10-16

CORPORATION LAW (SHAREHOLDER’S DIRECT CLAIMS STEMMING FROM DISPROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BETWEEN SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTORS)/DIVIDENDS (DIRECT CLAIM AGAINST CORPORATION STEMMING FROM DISPROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, DUTY OWED SHAREHOLDER BY DIRECTORS AS BASIS FOR DIRECT CLAIM)

,

ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendants (city and police) in an action alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution. Defendant was accused of possession of a weapon and spent 247 days in jail before being acquitted at trial. The accusation was based on the testimony of one of the police officers at the scene who said he saw defendant drop the weapon on a pile of garbage bags (where the weapon was apparently recovered). No other officer at the scene saw defendant with a weapon. And there was no mention of defendant discarding the weapon in any of paperwork relating to defendant’s arrest:

The elements of a claim for malicious prosecution are (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff; (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding; and (4) actual malice … . A jury may infer that a defendant acted with actual malice from the fact that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff … . As noted, there are numerous factual questions concerning whether the police had the requisite probable cause to arrest plaintiff and initiate criminal proceedings. The omissions in the police paperwork and the various versions of events raise questions as to the credibility of the police account of what transpired. Further, the presumption of probable cause attaching upon an accused’s arraignment or indictment may be overcome by evidence that “the police witnesses have not made a complete and full statement of facts either to the Grand Jury or to the District Attorney, that they have misrepresented or falsified evidence, that they have withheld evidence or [that they have] otherwise acted in bad faith” … . Mendez v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 01586, 1st Dept 3-8-16

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN FABRICATED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN FABRICATED)

CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE IS BROADER IN ITS REACH THAN NEW YORK COUNTERPARTS AND THEREFORE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender based on a Connecticut conviction for sexual assault. The court found the Connecticut statute was broader than its New York counterparts in both the “threat of harm,” and “accomplice liability” elements.  Therefore the violation of the Connecticut statute could not serve as a predicate felony in New York.

The New York statutes prohibit various sexual acts by forcible compulsion, which is defined (among other things) as the use of a threat “which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury [to someone] or in fear that [someone] will immediately be kidnapped” (Penal Law § 130.00[8]…). In contrast, CGSA § 53a-70(a)(1) does not contain any requirement that a threat issued to compel sexual intercourse must threaten immediate harm. Accordingly, the Connecticut statute is necessarily broader than its New York counterparts, and may not serve as a predicate offense … .

In addition, since CGSA § 53a-70(a)(1) is a general intent statute … , “the prosecution need not establish that the accused intended the precise harm or precise result which resulted from his acts” … . Accordingly, a conviction under the statute is warranted even if a rape committed by a person other than the defendant is the unintended result of the defendant's use or threatened use of force … . In contrast, New York law requires that in order to establish accessorial liability the People must establish that a defendant, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the crime at issue, either solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided another in committing the crime (Penal Law § 20.00). Accordingly, the Connecticut statute is broader than its New York counterparts in this regard as well. People v Davis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01623, 1st Dept 3-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE CANNOT SERVE AS PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/SENTENCING (VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE CANNOT SERVE AS PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE CANNOT SERVE AS PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)

ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the breach of contract allegations were precluded by the statute of frauds, the related causes of action for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, Peter, and defendant, Lisa, were both named as beneficiaries in their mother's, Madeline's, will. However, when Peter was in the midst of divorce proceedings, Madeline made Lisa the sole beneficiary because she did not want Peter's wife to claim any assets in her estate should she die before the divorce was final.  Lisa orally agreed to split the estate upon Madeline's death in return for Peter's promise to pay Madeline's estate taxes. Peter paid the estate taxes and Lisa reneged on the deal:

Although the breach of contract causes of action cannot stand, the complaint sufficiently states a claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are: (i) a sufficiently clear and unambiguous promise; (ii) reasonable reliance on the promise; and (iii) injury caused by the reliance … . If a contract is barred by the statute of frauds, a promissory estoppel claim is viable in the limited set of circumstances where unconscionable injury results from the reliance placed on the alleged promise … . * * *

The factual allegations of the complaint sufficiently state a cause of action for unjust enrichment with respect to Peter's payment of Madeline's estate taxes and Lisa's life insurance premiums. To establish unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was enriched, at the plaintiff's expense, and that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered … . Here, the complaint's allegations show that Lisa was enriched at Peter's expense because Peter paid the estate taxes and insurance premiums, despite Lisa's being the sole beneficiary of the will, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to allow Lisa to retain that windfall.

This theory of unjust enrichment is not precluded by the statute of frauds because it is not an attempt to enforce the oral contract but instead seeks to recover the amount by which Lisa was enriched at Peter's expense … . Castellotti v Free, 2016 NY Slip Op 01625, 1st Dept 3-8-16

CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED BY STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS);/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED BY STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED BY STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

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