You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN TWO WORKERS LOST CONTROL OF A HEAVY BEAM THEY WERE LOWERING TO THE GROUND ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; EXPERT OPINION THAT NO SAFETY DEVICES WERE NECESSARY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy beam being lowered by two other workers struck him in the chest and leg when the workers lost control of it. The court noted an expert opinion that no safety devices were needed was insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law 240 (1) violation:

The court properly found a “causal connection between the object’s inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff’s injury” … . By submitting an expert affidavit, plaintiff met his initial burden of showing that the beam “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … , and that statutorily enumerated safety devices could have prevented the accident … . It is undisputed that no enumerated safety devices were provided, and the testimony and expert opinion that such devices were neither necessary nor customary is insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation ”’ . The “height differential cannot be described as de minimis given the amount of force [the beam was] able to generate over [its] descent” … . Plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, which 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 the other two workers lowered the beam; comparative negligence is no defense to the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Bonaerge v Leighton House Condominium, 2015 NY Slip Op 09632, 1st Dept 12-29-15

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY BEAM LOWERED BY TWO WORKERS)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION NO SAFEY EQUIPMENT NECESSARY DID NOT DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (OPINION THAT NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS NECESSARY WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)

,

DESTRUCTION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN FLOODING CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY DID NOT WARRANT AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that the destruction of blood evidence by Hurricane Sandy did not warrant an adverse inference jury instruction, despite the People’s failure to timely respond to the defense request for the evidence. The court determined that the adverse inference jury instruction is not triggered by a loss of evidence for which the People are blameless:

… [T]he Handy [20 NY3d 663] adverse inference charge is a penalty for destruction of evidence, not for mere tardiness in producing it. …  While we do not condone the People’s slowness in fulfilling their disclosure obligations in this case, the evidence in question was not lost as a foreseeable result of the passage of time, but as a consequence of a natural catastrophe that happened to occur just before this case went to trial. Moreover, the delay in production of the evidence here appears to be as much the fault of the defense as of the People. Even though the defense always knew that the case would rely on DNA evidence, defense counsel, after making a pro forma request to which the physical blood evidence would have been responsive, never took any steps before the hurricane, over a period of approximately two years, to enforce defendant’s right to production of that evidence. As previously noted, the physical evidence did not become a focus of the discussion among the court and counsel until after the hurricane had passed. …

We see no support in the record for the dissent’s position that the physical blood evidence from the crime scene was somehow material to the defense. As previously discussed, while the dissent correctly notes that the match of defendant’s DNA with the DNA in the crime scene evidence was “the lynchpin of the People’s case against defendant,” placing before the jury the physical blood evidence from the crime scene would not have told them anything about the accuracy of the DNA match. Indeed, this appears to have been the original conclusion of defense counsel, who, without ever having had an opportunity to examine the physical evidence, announced that he was “ready to go” to trial before he learned that such evidence was no longer [*4]available. Nothing but speculation supports the dissent’s unlikely supposition that the appearance of the physical blood evidence at trial might have told the jury anything about “the manner of its collection, storage or handling” at the time the State analyzed its DNA, three years before trial. The condition of the physical evidence after the State conducted its analysis is irrelevant, since defendant has never expressed any interest in conducting an independent DNA analysis. People v Austin, 2015 NY Slip Op 09372, 1st Dept 12-22-15

CRIMINAL LAW (DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED)/JURY INSTRUCTION (ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED, EVIDENCE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY)/EVIDENCE (DESTRUCTION BY HURRICANE SANDY, ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (NOT WARRANTED WHERE EVIDENCE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY)

,

EVIDENCE OF HOW THE MURDER VICTIM FELT ABOUT DEFENDANT AND EVIDENCE OF STRIFE IN THE COUPLE’S RELATIONSHIP ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY.

The First Department determined evidence of how the murder victim felt toward the defendant and evidence of the couple’s “strife and unhappiness” was properly admitted to show the defendant’s motive and was inextricably interwoven with the issue of the identity of the killer:

The court properly admitted testimony from friends of the victim reflecting the victim’s unfavorable perception of defendant’s character, in order to show the victim’s beliefs as part of a showing that the couple had been arguing and that the victim had been attempting to break up with defendant. Proof of the “murder victim’s espoused intention to terminate her relationship with, and stay away from, defendant” was admissible to show the “victim’s state of mind” and was “relevant to the issue of the motive of defendant, who was aware of the victim’s attitude, to kill the victim” … . Hence, the background information about the couple’s “strife and unhappiness” was admissible as “highly probative of the defendant’s motive and [was] either directly related to or inextricably interwoven with the issue of his identity as the killer” … . The friends’ testimony about disputes between defendant and the victim was similarly admissible … . People v Brooks, 2015 NY Slip Op 09379, 1st Dept 12-22-15

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF MURDER VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND AND STRIFE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY)/EVIDENCE (MURDER VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND AND STRIFE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY); PRIOR BAD ACTS (STRIFE IN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND MURDER VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND IDENTITY)

,

MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER “TEMPORARY WORKS” CLAUSE IN INSURANCE POLICY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissent (opinion by Justice Mazzarelli), determined that a massive 750-foot tower crane destroyed during Hurricane Sandy was not included in the policy-definition of “Temporary Works” and was included in a policy-exclusion for “contractor’s tools, machinery, plant and equipment.” Damage to the crane, therefore, was not covered:

The policy defines a temporary structure as something that is “incidental to the project.” Although the term incidental is not defined, “it is common practice for the courts of this State to refer to the dictionary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words to a contract” … .

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “incidental” as”[s]ubordinate to something of greater importance; having a minor role” (10th ed 2014]). The American Heritage Dictionary, defines incidental as “[o]f a minor, casual, or subordinate nature” (5th ed 2011]). The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the term “incidental” as “being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence” (11th ed 2003).

Applying these definitions, the 750-foot tower crane is not a structure that is “incidental” to the project. Indeed, rather than ensuing by chance or minor consequence … the “[b]uilding was specifically designed to incorporate the Tower Crane during construction” and the crane’s design and erection involved an “in-depth process” that had to be approved by a structural engineer. Moreover, once it was integrated into the structure of the building, the custom designed tower crane, rather than serving a minor or subordinate role, was used to lift items such as concrete slabs, structural steel and equipment, was integral and indispensable, not incidental, to the construction of the 74-story high-rise, which could not have been built without it. Accordingly, the tower crane does not fall within the policy’s definition of Temporary Works. Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 09389, 1st Dept 12-22-15

INSURANCE LAW (DAMAGE TO MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION CRANE NOT COVERED BY TEMPORARY WORKS CLAUSE)/CONTRACT LAW (DAMAGE TO MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION CRANE NOT COVERED BY TEMPORARY WORKS CLAUSE IN POLICY)

MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR THE CHARGE WAS TIMELY; ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE RE: EXPERT WHO DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN.

The First Department, in ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have given a missing witness charge with respect to one of plaintiff’s doctors and should have given an adverse inference charge based upon a defense expert’s failure to bring her notes, which were subpoenaed:

The party seeking a missing witness charge has the burden of promptly notifying the court when the need for such a charge arises … . The purpose of imposing such a burden is, in part, to permit the parties “to tailor their trial strategy to avoid substantial possibilities of surprise” … . Once the party requesting the charge meets its initial burden, the party opposing the request can defeat it by demonstrating that, among other things, the witness was not available, was outside of its control, or the issue about which the witness would have been called to testify is immaterial … .

Here, the record does not reflect when defendants asked for a missing witness charge for Dr. Rose. This presents the possibility that they did not do so until after plaintiff presented her case. Had that been so, plaintiff would have lost any opportunity to account for Dr. Rose’s absence, argue that plaintiff did not have the requisite control over him, or attempt to procure his appearance. Accordingly, since there is no indication that defendants met their burden, we find that the missing witness charge was improperly given. * * *

…[W]hile Dr. Elkin [a defense expert] did not, as plaintiff suggests, testify that she “destroyed” her notes, she did concede that she did not comply with the subpoena, which required her to bring with her to court the notes that she used in generating her report on behalf of defendants. The failure to produce those notes affected plaintiff’s ability to cross-examine defendants’ expert and was fundamentally unfair to plaintiff. At the least, it would have been appropriate for the court to issue an adverse inference charge … . That Dr. Elkin testified that the notes were subsumed in the report is of no moment. Plaintiff was entitled to independently investigate that claim without having to rely on Dr. Elkin’s own assurances that the notes were themselves of no probative value. Herman v Moore, 2015 NY Slip Op 09352, 1st Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

EVIDENCE (MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST WAS TIMELY)/MISSING WITNESS CHARGE (SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST WAS TIMELY)/EVIDENCE (ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE SHOULD HABE BEEN GIVEN, EXPERT DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES)/ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, EXPERT DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING OF TIMELY REQUEST)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, EXPERT DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES)

WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT UPON THE TERMINATION OF TREATMENT CULMINATING IN THE IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED DONOR EGG.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a partial dissent, determined that plaintiffs’ action for wrongful birth accrued upon the birth of the child, not when the procedure implanting a fertilized donated egg was complete. The plaintiffs alleged that a donor egg was not adequately screened for genetic defects and that, in fact, a genetic defect in the egg was passed on to plaintiffs’ child:

This is a medical malpractice action for “wrongful birth” … , in which it is alleged that defendants’ failure to perform adequate genetic screening of an egg donor for an in vitro fertilization resulted in the conception and birth of plaintiffs’ impaired child. The primary question raised on this appeal is whether plaintiffs’ wrongful birth cause of action accrued upon the termination of defendants’ treatment of the plaintiff mother, less than two months after the implantation of the embryo, or upon the birth of the infant several months later. We hold that the wrongful birth claim accrued upon the birth of the infant and, therefore, was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a) when this action was commenced within 2½ years after the birth. * * *

In the case of a claim for wrongful birth, “the parents’ legally cognizable injury is the increased financial obligation” of raising an impaired child … , … . Whether this legally cognizable injury will befall potential parents as the result of the gestation of an impaired fetus cannot be known until the pregnancy ends. Only if there is a live birth will the injury be suffered. Thus, until there is a live birth, the existence of a cognizable legal injury that will support a wrongful birth cause of action cannot even be alleged . Without legally cognizable damages, there is no legal right to relief, and “the Statute of Limitations cannot run until there is a legal right to relief” … . Accordingly, the statute of limitations begins to run on a wrongful birth claim upon the live birth of an impaired child, whose care and support will occasion the pecuniary damages the parents may seek to recover. B.F. v Reproductive Medicine Assoc. of N.Y., LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 09370, 1st Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)/WRONGFUL BIRTH (CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)

PLAINTIFF IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE (1) FACEBOOK PHOTOGRAPHS SHE DID NOT INTEND TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL AND (2) INFORMATION ABOUT POST-ACCIDENT MESSAGES.

The First Department, over an extensive dissenting memorandum by Justice Saxe, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in a personal injury action was not required to turn over to the defendant post-accident photographs of herself posted on Facebook which she does not intend to introduce at trial, and, further, plaintiff was not required to provide defendant with authorizations allowing Facebook to disclose when private messages were posted by the plaintiff after the accident and how long those messages were:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” In determining whether the information sought is subject to discovery, “[t]he test is one of usefulness and reason” … . ” It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims'” … . Discovery demands are improper if they are based upon ” hypothetical speculations calculated to justify a fishing expedition'” … .

This Court has consistently applied these settled principles in the context of discovery requests seeking a party’s social media information.  Forman v Henkin, 2015 NY Slip Op 09350, 1st Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE OF FACEBOOK PHOTOGRAPHS AND INFORMATION ABOUT POST-ACCIDENT MESSAGES)/DISCLOSURE (FACEBOOK PHOTOGRAPHS AND INFORMATION ABOUT POST-ACCIDENT MESSAGES)/FACEBOOK (DISCLOSURE OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND INFORMATION ABOUT POST-ACCIDENT MESSAGES)

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff did not know the cause of his slip and fall.  Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [P]laintiff, who testified at his depositions through a Spanish interpreter, testified at his first deposition that upon exiting the convenience store he “stepped like on a hole,” and that he “stepped on something” on the defective ramp which caused his ankle to twist and him to fall to the ground. He further testified at that deposition that “[w]hen [he] stepped, it was that [he] felt like something — – that something was not right underneath,” “[l]ike [he] stepped on something not solid.” That plaintiff could not initially identify the location of his accident, based upon photographs he was shown at his first deposition that depicted only the bottom portion of a door with no other identifying features, is hardly surprising and not dispositive. Upon being shown, at his second deposition, additional photographs depicting the full entrance area and front of the convenience store, plaintiff was able to definitively identify and mark with an “X” the area on the ramp which was “not leveled” and caused him to fall … . Taveras v 1149 Webster Realty Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09192, 1st Dept 12-15-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW CAUSE OF HIS FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL)

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND AN AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY TENANT FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM TENANT’S NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department determined defendant did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord and defendant was therefore properly held liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall. Plaintiff worked for nonparty tenant Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. (SSLM) with which defendant had a property management agreement. Although the agreement required SSLM to maintain the facility, defendant had access to the facility for inspection and agreed to indemnify SSLM for claims arising from SSLM’s negligence:

Defendant failed to establish that it was an out-of-possession landowner with limited liability to third persons injured on the property … . Its management agreement with SSLM gave SSLM “complete and full control and discretion in the operation … of the Facility” and required SSLM to “maintain the Facility … in conformity with applicable Legal Requirements.” However, defendant had “access to the Facility at any and all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection,” had access to SSLM’s books and records, and was required to fund operating shortfalls, and SSLM was required to report to defendant regularly and to maintain bank accounts in approved financial institutions “as agent for [defendant].”

Significantly, the management agreement requires defendant to indemnify SSLM for claims arising out of SSLM’s own negligence in the performance of its duties. This agreement to indemnify is analogous to the procurement of insurance, which constitutes evidence of ownership and control … . It evidences defendant’s intent to be responsible for any accidents on the property. But for the fortuity of plaintiff’s being an employee who was barred from suing his employer, defendant would be responsible, through the indemnification provision, for his injuries. Waring v Sunrise Yonkers SL, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09174, 1st Dept 12-10-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)

PLAINTIFF, WHO SOLD GOODS TO NEW JERSEY COMPANIES FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT FULLY PAID, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK JURISDICTION; FACTS PLED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION; SITUS OF THE INJURY WAS NEW JERSEY, NOT NEW YORK.

The First Department determined plaintiff did not demonstrate New York jurisdiction under the long arm statute (CPLR 302(a)(1) or under the statute imposing jurisdiction based on an out-of-state tort causing injury in New York (CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii)). Plaintiff allegedly sold goods to two New Jersey companies for which plaintiff was not fully paid.  The assets of the two New Jersey companies were allegedly sold to a European company. Plaintiff alleged the transfer to the European company was a fraudulent conveyance. In finding both jurisdictional arguments lacking, the court wrote:

… [T]he purchase and sale transaction, whereby this in-state plaintiff shipped goods to the out-of-state defendants, who then failed to fully pay for the goods, is “[t]he classic instance in which personal jurisdiction is found not to exist” … . Plaintiff has offered nothing but conclusory assertions to support long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1). * * *

The court also properly rejected plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii), for an alleged tort committed without the state causing injury within the state. As to the tort committed without the state, plaintiff points to the alleged fraudulent conveyance …. This fails, however, because the “the situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt” … . Thus, this alleged tortious act did not cause injury within New York, but in New Jersey. Plaintiff has also offered nothing but conclusory allegations that any defendant “derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce,” as required for jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii). Cotia (USA) Ltd. v Lynn Steel Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09169, 1st Dept 12-10-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION NOT DEMONSTRATED, SALE OF GOODS TO COMPANIES IN NEW JERSEY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURISDICTION BASED UPON SITUS OF THE INJURY NOT DEMONSTRATED)/JURISDICTION (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTION BASED UPON SITUS OF THE INJURY NOT DEMONSTRATED)/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (SALE OF GOODS TO OUT-OF-STATE BUYER NOT SUFFICIENT)/SITUS OF INJURY JURISDICTION (SITUS OF INJURY FROM ALLEGED FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE WAS NOT NEW YORK)

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