You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

MOTION TO VACATE THE EXECUTED WARRANT OF EVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department, over an extensive concurrence by Justice Saxe, determined Civil Court properly granted tenant’s post-eviction motion to vacate the warrant of eviction and restore the tenant to possession. The tenant was disabled and had trouble securing the emergency rental assistance to cover the arrears. Eventually the landlord was paid in full and the costs of the eviction were reimbursed. The concurrence expressed concern over the validity of the relevant precedent and the need for landlords to essentially lend money at no interest to low-income tenants “who rely on the slow process of obtaining grants and supplemental payments to cover their rent.” With respect to the authority to vacate an executed warrant of eviction, the court wrote:

We reject the landlord’s contention, premised on RPAPL 749(3), that the Civil Court lacked the authority to grant the tenant’s post-eviction motion … . “[T]he Civil Court may, in appropriate circumstances, vacate the warrant of eviction and restore the tenant to possession even after the warrant has been executed” … . Here, the Civil Court providently exercised its discretion, as the record shows that the long-term, disabled tenant “did not sit idly by[,]” but instead made appreciable payments towards his rental arrears and “engaged in good faith efforts to secure emergency rental assistance to cover the arrears” … . Moreover, the tenant has paid the rental arrears for the unit and the landlord’s costs for the underlying proceeding …, and the record shows that the delays in payment were, to a certain extent, attributable to others, including the landlord … . Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v Pickett, 2016 NY Slip Op 00253, 1st Dept 1-14-16

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (MOTION TO VACATE EXECUTED WARRANT OF EVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/EVICTION (MOTION TO VACATE EXECUTED WARRANT OF EVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)

THE FACT THAT A (NON-DEFECTIVE) A-FRAME LADDER FELL OVER WHILE PLAINTIFF HELD ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department, over an extensive concurring memorandum, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder when he was jolted by contact with an electric wire and the ladder fell over as plaintiff held on to it. There was no evidence the ladder was defective. The majority held the fact the ladder was not secured to something, and therefore fell over while plaintiff was hanging on to it, demonstrated the failure to provide plaintiff with an adequate safety device. The concurring memorandum argued plaintiff’s fall from a non-defective ladder was not enough to justify summary judgment, but rather the fall from the ladder after contact with electricity raised a question of fact about the adequacy of the safety devices provided. The majority wrote:

 

Here, plaintiff was injured when he was jolted by the electrical charge and although he hung onto the ladder, because it was not secured to something stable, it and he fell to the ground … . The lack of a secure ladder is a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and is a proximate cause of the accident … . Nazario v 222 Broadway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00251, 1st Dept 1-14-16

 

LABOR LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORTED BY NON-DEFECTIVE A-FRAME LADDER WHICH FELL OVER WITH PLAINTIFF HOLDING ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY)

SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY ARISING FROM THE LOSS OF $6.2 BILLION FROM HIGH RISK TRADING DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE PRE-SUIT DEMAND WOULD BE FUTILE.

The First Department, in this shareholders’ derivative action against Morgan Stanley, determined the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that a pre-suit demand upon the board of directors would have been futile.  Therefore, the action was properly dismissed (without prejudice). The lawsuit involved the so-called “London Whale” debacle where $6.2 billion was lost in high-risk trading despite public representations the group engaged in only low risk hedging. The court explained the relevant criteria for a futility demonstration:

 

Plaintiffs’ claim, based on the Board’s alleged failure to properly exercise its oversight duties, is premised on the theory of liability articulated in In re Caremark Intl. Inc. Derivative Litig. (698 A2d 959…). * * *

In Caremark cases, allegations of demand futility are analyzed under the principles set forth in Rales v Blasband (634 A2d 927, 933-934 [Del 1993]) …). Under Rales, the plaintiff must plead particularized facts raising “a reasonable doubt that, [at] the time the complaint [was] filed, the board of directors could have properly exercised its independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand” … . To rebut the presumption of disinterestedness, the plaintiff must plead particularized facts that, if proved, would establish that a majority of the directors face a “substantial likelihood” of personal liability for the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint … . A “mere threat” of liability is insufficient … .

Here, plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing that the board could not exercise independent business judgment because a majority of directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability for the challenged conduct. At the time plaintiffs filed their complaint, the board consisted of 11 directors. At most, plaintiffs showed that four of them — inside director Dimon and the three members of the Risk Policy Committee — faced a substantial likelihood of liability … . “Because a majority of the directors are independent, demand is not excused”… . Wandel v Dimon, 2016 NY Slip Op 00252, 1st Dept 1-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT [SARA] (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)

, ,

DEFENDANT, WHICH OPERATED A STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PRESENTED NO AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON CAUSATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant synagogue’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff was a participant in a study-abroad program run by defendant in Israel. She injured her knee and alleged she was prescribed physical therapy but defendant refused to provide it (delaying and compromising recovery). The First Department held defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff because it had agreed to provide medical care and was in the best position to protect plaintiff from injury. The court noted that defendant’s attempt to place the burden on plaintiff to demonstrate a causal link between her injury and the failure to provide physical therapy must fail in the context of a defense summary judgment motion. The burden never shifted to plaintiff on that issue because the defendant did not demonstrate, through an expert affidavit, the absence of causation. [Yet another example of the need for a defendant to present affirmative proof on every relevant issue when seeking summary judgment. Without affirmative proof on a necessary issue, the burden never shifts to plaintiff.]:

 

The existence of a duty depends on the circumstances, and the issue is one of law for the court; “the court is to apply a broad range of societal and policy factors” … .

In determining the threshold question of whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care, courts must balance relevant factors, “including the reasonable expectations of parties and society generally, the proliferation of claims, the likelihood of unlimited or insurer-like liability, disproportionate risk and reparation allocation, and public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability” … . The parties’ relationship may create a duty where it “places the defendant in the best position to protect against the risk of harm [] and [] the specter of limitless liability is not present” … . Thus, where a defendant exercises a sufficient degree of control over an event, a duty of care to plaintiff may arise … .

Here, the parties’ relationship created a duty to provide plaintiff with the necessary medical care because not only did defendant agree to do so, it was in the “best position to protect against the risk of harm” and “the specter of limitless liability [was] not present” … . The program was not an ordinary college or study-abroad program. Indeed, the second “semester” did not take place in a university environment. Rather, it took place in Yerucham, a small town in the Negev desert, involved volunteering, and was supervised by counselors who did “[p]retty much everything,” including responding to medical issues. Under the circumstances, defendant exercised a sufficient degree of control over the program to create a duty of care to plaintiff … . Katz v United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 2016 NY Slip Op 00094, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (OPERATOR OF STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM OWED DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT)/DUTY OF CARE (OPERATOR OF STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM OWED DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT)/EVIDENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVIDE AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE OF CAUSATION IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST SUBMIT AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON ISSUE OF CAUSATION OF INJURY, ABSENT AFFIRMATIVE PROOF BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF ON THAT ISSUE)

, ,

SUPPRESSION OF JUVENILE’S PROVIDING FALSE NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH TO POLICE OFFICER PROPERLY DENIED; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION BASED UPON THE FALSE PEDIGREE INFORMATION PROPER.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined suppression of the juvenile’s giving a false name and date of birth when asked for that information by a police officer was properly denied. The juvenile was warned by the officer that providing false pedigree information would result in a false personation charge (a class B misdemeanor). The juvenile was in fact found to have committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute false personation. The court further determined the sentence of probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the juvenile’s needs. The dissent focused on the propriety of the sentence. With respect to the denial of the suppression motion, the court explained:

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress her statement to the police, in which she gave a false name and date of birth, resulting in the false personation charge (Penal Law § 190.23). The police had probable cause to believe appellant was a runaway … . The then 14-year-old appellant, who appeared to be as young as 13, was alone in a PATH station in New Jersey, but she vaguely claimed to live in “upstate” New York. In addition, she had a bruised eye and was wearing provocative clothing, suggesting the possibility of some kind of sexual exploitation. The police were entitled to ask pedigree questions without Miranda warnings, even though an officer warned appellant, as required by the false personation statute, that providing false information would result in an additional charge … . Matter of Christy C., 2016 NY Slip Op 00095, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PROHIBITS CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING OR TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, DOES NOT IMPOSE PUNISHMENT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE.

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissenting opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits certain sex offenders, including appellant, from residing or traveling within 1000 feet of school grounds, did not violate the federal or state constitutions. Appellant claimed there was no place he could reside in Manhattan, and no way to travel to the places he was required to visit in Manhattan, without violating the statute. SARA was enacted after appellant’s conviction. Appellant argued the statute violated the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws. The court applied the intent-effects analysis. If the intent of the legislation was to impose punishment, the statute would violate the EX Post Facto prohibition and the court’s inquiry would end. But if the intent was to establish civil proceedings, the court must go on to determine whether the effect of the statute is so punitive as to negate its civil nature. After an extensive analysis, the First Department held the statute was not intended to impose punishment, and the additional restrictions the statute imposed upon appellant, who was already otherwise restricted as a parolee, did not rise to the level of punishment:

 

… [W]hile some factors favor petitioner, overall we do not find the clear proof that is necessary to support a determination that SARA is punitive in its effect. The legislature was not “masking punitive provisions behind the veneer of a civil statute” … . Consequently, we conclude that SARA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Matter of Williams v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2016 NY Slip Op 00135, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT [SARA] (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)

,

ASSIGNMENT TO PLAINTIFF OF ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST TO $626 MILLION IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION FRAUD CLAIMS; THE RIGHT TO SUE MORGAN STANLEY FOR FRAUD, THEREFORE, WAS NOT ASSIGNED TO PLAINTIFF.

In 2006 and 2007 plaintiff FSAM bought $626 million in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) from defendant Morgan Stanley. “All right, title and interest” to those securities were then assigned to plaintiff Dexia, which paid FSAM the same amount FSAM paid Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs, FSAM and Dexia, sued Morgan Stanley, alleging Morgan Stanley knew the RMBS were of poor quality but represented they were prudent AAA-rated securities. The First Department determined the fraud claims did not transfer to Dexia because no specific mention of them was made in the assignment. The court further determined FSAM did not have standing to assert the fraud claims because Dexia paid FSAM for them and FSAM, therefore, could not establish damages:

 

The Court of Appeals recently explained that “the right to assert a fraud claim related to a contract or note does not automatically transfer with the respective contract or note” … . “Thus, where an assignment of fraud or other tort claims is intended in conjunction with the conveyance of a contract or note, there must be some language — although no specific words are required — that evinces that intent and effectuates the transfer of such rights” … . “Without a valid assignment, only the . . . assignor may rescind or sue for damages for fraud and deceit’ because the representations were made to it and it alone had the right to rely on them” … .

We find that plaintiff FSAM’s agreement to deliver “all right, title and interest” in the RMBS to the Dexia plaintiffs did not include fraud claims, since FSAM only assigned rights in the subject securities without explicitly referencing any related tort claims or the overall transaction between FSAM and defendants … .

Because FSAM received from the Dexia plaintiffs the same amount it originally paid for the securities, FSAM cannot establish damages … . Dexia SA/NV v Stanley, 2016 NY Slip Op 00122, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (FRAUD CLAIMS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN ASSIGNMENT ARE NOT ASSIGNED)/ASSIGNMENTS (FRAUD CLAIMS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN ASSIGNMENT ARE NOT ASSIGNED)/FRAUD (FRAUD CLAIMS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN ASSIGNMENT ARE NOT ASSIGNED)

,

THEORIES OF LIABILITY NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM THE NOTICE OF CLAIM CAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to allow the supplementing of a bill of particulars because the new theories of liability could not be implied from the notice of claim. This was a slip and fall case. The notice of claim alleged the fall was caused by liquid on a stair. The supplemental bill sought to allege the stair was defective and a building employee was not properly trained:

 

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he may not rely on his testimony at his General Municipal Law § 50-H hearing to rectify any deficiencies in the notice of claim, because he never testified that there was an issue with the step itself and traditionally such testimony has only been “permitted to clarify the location of an accident or the nature of injuries, [it] may not be used to amend the theory of liability set forth in the notice of claim where, as here, amendment would change the nature of the claim'” … .

Accordingly, the motion court properly struck the allegations from the supplemental bill of particulars, as new theories of liability that cannot be fairly implied from the notice of claim, and precluded plaintiff’s expert from testifying with regard to them … . Lewis v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 00040, 1st Dept 1-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)/MUNICIPAL LAW (BILL OF PARTICULARS CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE LEARNED AT TRIAL CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the suppression hearing. Defendant was convicted of burglary. A bag of tools was the subject of a suppression motion. At the suppression hearing, the police officer testified the bag was open at defendant’s feet. The suppression court ruled the “burglar’s tools” were properly seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement. At trial, the building superintendent who stopped the defendant testified the bag was in defendant’s hand and closed when the police arrived. Based on that new information, defense counsel should have requested the reopening of the suppression hearing:

 

Under CPL 710.40(4), a suppression hearing may be reopened upon a showing that the defendant has discovered “additional pertinent facts” that “could not have [been] discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion.” Here, the additional facts were “pertinent” because the superintendent’s testimony, if credited, would have undermined the ruling that the tools were admissible because they were in plain view. This was not a minor or routine inconsistency; the superintendent’s version was completely at odds with a plain view theory. Any issue of whose recollection was most reliable should have been presented to the hearing court. People v Kindell, 2016 NY Slip Op 00027, 1st Dept 1-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASIED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/SUPPRESSION (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)

ALTHOUGH VACATUR OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 5015, VACATUR WAS AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 317.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (the LLC’s) motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted. Although the LLC did not present a reasonable excuse for default, and therefore vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 was not available, the requirements for vacatur pursuant to CPLR 317 were met:

 

Although the LLC is not entitled to vacatur under CPLR 5015(a)(1), as it did not show a reasonable excuse for its default … , it is entitled to vacatur under CPLR 317, as it moved to vacate within a year after it learned of the default and just five months after entry of the default order, it showed that it did not personally receive the summons and complaint in time to defend it, and it presented a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 317…). The affidavit the LLC submitted in support of its motion was sufficient to show a meritorious defense … — namely, that it is an out-of-possession landlord that bears no liability for the injuries that allegedly occurred in its tenant’s bar due to the criminal acts of third parties … . Marte v 102-06 43 Ave., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00061, 1st Dept 1-7-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VACATUR OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER CPLR 317 AVAILABLE BUT NOT UNDER CPLR 5015 )/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, VACATUR (AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 317 BUT NOT UNDER CPLR 5015)

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