You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

People Were Not Required to Disclose (Prior to Trial) Confession Made by Defendant to Health Care Worker

The First Department noted the People were not required to disclose, prior to trial, a confession defendant made to a health care worker (because the health care worker was not connected to law enforcement):

… [M]idway through their case, the People introduced a previously undisclosed confession that defendant made to a health care worker at a hospital where he was being treated for a suicide attempt. This statement tended to corroborate a similar confession that defendant made to a detective shortly thereafter. It is undisputed that the People had no statutory duty to disclose this statement, because it was not made to anyone connected with law enforcement (see CPL 240.20[1][a]), and because no Rosario material was involved. Defendant nevertheless complains that his due process right to a fair trial was violated by the timing of the disclosure, because he would have formulated a different defense had he known the People intended to introduce a confession to a civilian witness. However, we find no evidence of deceit or trickery on the part of the People, and defendant’s claim of prejudice is unpersuasive. … [T]here was no misrepresentation that the undisclosed evidence did not exist, and the trial had not progressed to the point where defendant could not have adjusted his defense, or requested less drastic relief than a mistrial.

Defense counsel did not object to the health care worker’s testimony on the ground of physician-patient privilege, and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. People v Tayo, 2015 NY Slip Op 08353, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

,

Libel Action Based Upon Allegedly False Impressions Created by an Article in an Online News Publication, Including the Allegedly False Context of a Quotation of Plaintiff’s Own Words, Allowed to Go Forward; Pleading Requirements for Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Met.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined: (1) the complaint did not state a cause of action for libel per se (because extrinsic facts were necessary for a defamatory interpretation of the statement); (2) the libel cause action failed to sufficiently plead special damages (leave to replead granted); (3) the fact that one of the allegedly defamatory statements was in plaintiff’s “own words” did not warrant dismissal; and (4) the complaint did not adequately allege that the publisher of the statements (Daily Holdings) was the alter ego of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The opinion includes substantive discussions (which cannot be fairly summarized here) of defamation, falsity, libel per se, libel, special damages, the so-called “own words” defense, and the requirements for piercing the corporate veil. With respect to the plaintiff’s twitter post which allegedly was used in a false context, the court discussed the so-called “own words defense:”

It is true that courts across the country have extended the “truth defense” to include an “own words” defense (see e.g., Thomas v Pearl, 998 F2d 447, 452 [7th Cir 1993] [holding that “(a) party’s accurate quoting of another’s statement cannot defame the speaker’s reputation since the speaker is himself responsible for whatever harm the words might cause. . . . The fact that a statement is true, or in this case accurately quoted, is an absolute defense to a defamation action.”]; Van Buskirk v Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F3d 977, 981-982 [9th Cir 2002] [applying the “own words” defense despite “contextual discrepancies” between the plaintiff’s own words and the defendants’ quotation of those words]; Johnson v Overnite Transp. Co., 19 F3d 392, 392 n1 [8th Cir 1994] [recognizing the “general rule that a defamation claim arises only from a communication by someone other than the person defamed”]; Smith v School Dist. of Philadelphia, 112 F Supp 2d 417, 429 [ED Pa 2000] [noting that “(g)enerally, a plaintiff can not (sic) be defamed by the use of his own words”]). Although defendants cite to Thomas v Pearl (998 F2d 447) in their brief, the parties failed to specifically address whether the “own words” defense should be adopted by this Court; and we are aware of no authority, in either New York State jurisprudence or in the Second Circuit, which either expressly accepts or rejects the “own words” defense. We are aware of only one case in the State, albeit a federal district court case, that even mentions the defense: Fine v ESPN (11 F Supp 3d 209, 224 [ND NY 2014]), in a section titled ” Own Words’ Defense,” states that it cannot reach the issue because the records needed to compare the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s words were not properly before the court on a motion to dismiss. This highlights, however, the importance of a court’s need to compare the two statements as they appear in the actual writings before applying the “own words” defense to dismiss a defamation claim. This is also evident from the fact that the “own words” defense derives from the “truth defense.” Even if we were to adopt the “own words” defense, we find that it would not apply here where a comparison of the two statements reveals the potential for them to have different effects on the mind of the reader. Franklin v Daily Holdings, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08139, 1st Dept 11-12-15

 

, ,

Pedophilia Diagnosis, in Combination with Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), Substance Abuse Disorders, Failed Treatment and History of Sexual Misconduct, Constituted Sufficient Proof Respondent Had Serious Difficulty Controlling His Behavior Warranting Civil Commitment

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversed Supreme Court (which had set aside the jury verdict) and determined civil commitment of respondent sex offender was supported by the evidence. The case is another attempt to interpret and implement the criteria for civil commitment laid out by the Court of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. (Kenneth T.), 24 NY 3d 174 (2014). The respondent here was diagnosed with pedophilia, which, combined with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD), substance abuse disorders, respondent’s history of sexual misconduct, and his failure to benefit from treatment programs, was deemed sufficient proof respondent had difficulty controlling his behavior:

In Kenneth T., the State’s expert testified that Kenneth T. suffered from paraphilia not otherwise specified (paraphilia NOS) and ASPD, and that, together, these disorders predisposed him to committing sexual misconduct and resulted in his having serious difficulty controlling that conduct. In concluding that Kenneth T. had the requisite serious difficulty, the expert identified two factors: the fact that Kenneth T. had carried out two rapes under circumstances allowing for identification by his victims, and the fact that he committed the second rape despite having spent significant time in prison for the earlier rape. In finding this evidence legally insufficient, the Court stated that the serious difficulty prong could rarely, if ever, be satisfied from the facts of a sex offense alone … .

Here, in contrast, [the State’s expert] did not solely rely on the facts of respondent’s sex offenses in concluding that he had serious difficulty controlling his urges. Instead, Dr. [the expert] based his opinion on respondent’s triple diagnosis (pedophilia, ASPD and substance abuse disorders), his pattern of sexual misconduct, and his abject failure to satisfactorily progress in treatment. Notably, the underlying sexual disorder in Kenneth T. was paraphilia NOS, not pedophilia. The distinction is critical because, unlike paraphilia, pedophilia can only be diagnosed where the individual has actually acted upon sexual urges towards prepubescent children (or has experienced significant distress at those urges) for more than six months. Thus, pedophilia, by definition, involves an element of difficulty in control. Further, the DSM-5 explicitly recognizes that the dangerous combination of respondent’s ASPD and pedophilia increases the likelihood that he will act out sexually with children (see DSM-5 at 699). In addition, the diagnosis of respondent’s substance abuse disorders, not present in Kenneth T., provides a further basis for the jury’s finding of serious difficulty. * * *

By this decision, we do not hold that all offenders who suffer from pedophilia are automatically, by virtue of that diagnosis alone, subject to mandatory civil management. We simply hold that the State’s evidence in this case — including respondent’s multiple diagnoses, his history of sexual misconduct, his admitted inability to control his pedophilic urges, his lack of satisfactory progress in sex offender treatment and his failure to have a viable relapse prevention plan — was legally sufficient to uphold the jury’s conclusion that respondent has difficulty controlling his sexually offending behavior. Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 08102, 1st Dept 11-10-15

 

Voluntary Payment Doctrine Precluded Lawsuit

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff’s (Klein’s) complaint alleging  breach of contract, fraud, violation of General Business Law, etc., was properly dismissed pursuant to the voluntary payment doctrine. Klein procured a loan from defendant. After paying interest and fees to defendant in order to refinance with another lender, Klein sued defendant alleging the fees were excessive and were paid under duress. The majority concluded the voluntary payment doctrine warranted dismissal of the complaint. The dissent argued plaintiff had stated a cause of action alleging the payment was made under duress, and, therefore, was not voluntary:

The voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law … . The onus is on a party that receives what it perceives as an improper demand for money to “take its position at the time of the demand, and litigate the issue before, rather than after, payment is made” … . Here, there is no claim of fraud or mistake. Defendant was entirely aboveboard about the amount of money it expected to be paid to settle the loan. Nevertheless, Klein made the calculated decision to schedule the closing and to pay off the entire amount demanded. Nor, as discussed below, did Klein “take [his] position at the time of the demand.”

Plaintiffs argue that the voluntary doctrine should not apply because Klein was deprived of a meaningful choice as to whether to pay off the loan on defendant’s terms. They further claim that Klein protested the demand and that this shielded plaintiffs from any application of the doctrine. Nothing in plaintiffs’ complaint or papers in opposition to the motion suggests that these are viable positions. It is assumed, of course, that plaintiffs’ factual allegations are true, both in the complaint and in opposition to the motion … . However, conclusory allegations will not serve to defeat a motion to dismiss … . Nothing in the complaint or the affidavit alleges any reason why Klein had no choice but to go through with the closing; indeed, he was able to put off the closing the first time he received from defendant what he considered an unreasonable payoff demand. DRMAK Realty LLC v Progressive Credit Union, 2015 NY Slip Op 08044, 1st Dept 11-5-15

 

,

Due Diligence Requirements for Nail and Mail Service Do Not Apply Under the New York City Charter, One Attempt at Personal Service and Use of Nail and Mail Method for a Notice of Violation (by the NYC Department of Buildings) Sufficient

The First Department determined that, although the New York City Charter refers to CPLR article 3, the “due diligence” requirements for “nail and mail” service in article 3 do not apply to service of a notice of violation (NOV) by the Department of Buildings (DOB). Therefore, one attempt at personal service followed by use of the “nail and mail” method was sufficient service:

The reference to CPLR article 3 in the City Charter’s affix and mail provision merely prescribes the class of individuals whom respondents must try to personally serve, and does not import the “due diligence” requirement of CPLR article 3 … . This interpretation of the City Charter is supported by the statutory language as a whole, and by the legislative history showing a legislative intent to make service under section 1049-a(d)(2) of the City Charter less onerous than service under CPLR article 3 (see id.; see also Governor’s Mem approving L 1979, ch 623, 1979 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 1816-1817). Matter of Mestecky v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08077, 1st Dept 11-5-15

 

Report of a Robbery Five Minutes Before Justified Street Stop, Flight Justified Pursuit

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police were justified in stopping the defendants for a level-two inquiry, and were further justified in pursuing and detaining them. The majority found that the report of a robbery at a country club five minutes before, together with seeing the defendants on the private country club driveway justified a level two street stop and inquiry. When one of the men fled and the others walked away, the police were justified pursuing and detaining them. The dissenters argued that the police knew only that a robbery in the vicinity of the country club had been reported and that seeing the defendants walking on the driveway in broad daylight justified only a level one inquiry and, therefore, did not justify pursuit:

… [D]efendants were first seen on private property where a burglary had just been reported, in a suburban area, with nobody else visible anywhere in the vicinity. This gave rise to a founded suspicion of criminality, justifying a level-two common-law inquiry under the De Bour analysis.

The police did not exceed the bounds of a common-law inquiry when they requested defendants to stop so that the police could “ask them a question,” because such a direction does not constitute a seizure … . Instead of stopping, defendant Nonni immediately ran, and defendant Parker immediately made what officers described as a “hurried” and “evasive” departure … . Under all the circumstances, the record supports the conclusion that both defendants “actively fled from the police,” rather than exercising their “right to be let alone” … . Defendants’ flight elevated the existing level of suspicion to reasonable suspicion, justifying pursuit and an investigative detention … . Here, “[f]light, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect[s] . . . [might have been] engaged in criminal activity, . . . provide[d] the predicate necessary to justify pursuit”… . People v Nonni, 2015 NY Slip Op 08081, 1st Dept 11-5-15

 

,

Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive, Court Suggested Everyone In the Lineup Should Have Been Given an Eye Patch Because the Complainant Described the Perpetrator as Having a “Deformed Eye”

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the lineup in which defendant was identified by the complainant was unduly suggestive. The complainant had described the perpetrator as having a “deformed eye,” and defendant was the only person in the lineup with that feature. The court suggested having everyone in the lineup wear an eye patch:

The complainant described the perpetrator of the alleged robbery as having one distinctive physical feature: a “deformed right eye” which “appeared to be something further into his head.” At the suppression hearing, the detective who prepared a photo array and a postarrest lineup testified that, in each instance, defendant was the only participant who had an “apparently defective eye.” Under the circumstances, we find that the photo array and lineup were unduly suggestive because “only the defendant matche[d] a key aspect of the description of the perpetrator,” namely, a deformed right eye … . While we recognize the practical difficulties in finding fillers with similarly defective eyes, or photographs of such persons, “[a] simple eye patch provided to each of the lineup participants or a hand over an eye would have sufficed to remove any undue suggestiveness of the procedure” …, and similar measures could have been taken with regard to the photos. People v Perry, 2015 NY Slip Op 08046, 1st Dept 11-5-15

 

, ,

Cause of Action Based Upon a Dispute About the Correct Rent-Increase Computation Accrues on the First Use of the Disputed Computational Methodology

The First Department determined a lawsuit stemming from a dispute about the proper rent computation in an ambiguous contract was time-barred. The lawsuit was started in 2009. However, the rent computation problem was apparent in 1999. That is when the statute of limitations started running and it does not start anew every year the problem persisted:

In Goldman Copeland [260 AD2d 370], this Court squarely held that a claim for breach of contract based on an allegedly erroneous computation of rent accrues upon the first use of that computational methodology, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run anew each time the same formula is used. * * *

Goldman Copeland is a precedent of this Court, and we adhere to it as a matter of stare decisis. Its holding applies to this case, as Tenant consistently paid, and Landlord accepted, rent based on two successive 50-cents-per-square-foot escalations from 1999 through 2009, when this action was commenced. Further, when the first rent escalation went into effect in late 1999, Landlord could have determined, through the use of simple arithmetic, that the lease’s rent illustrations for the initial 25-year term were not based on 10% increases. When Landlord subsequently discovered in 2001 that it had not been billing rent based on a 10% escalation since 1999, the discovery was not based on any information that Landlord had not possessed in 1999. K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07905, 1st Dept 10-29-15

 

Public Adjuster Provided “Valuable Services” and Was Entitled to Compensation, Even Though Its Efforts Did Not Lead Directly to Settlement with the Insurer

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined a public adjuster (PAB), who initially aided the insured (Seward’s Park) in making its claim against the insurer, was entitled to compensation, even though its efforts did not lead directly to a settlement. After the initial settlement negotiations failed there was a trial at which the insured prevailed. That verdict was vacated and a new trial ordered. The matter settled before the second trial. PAB sought payment based upon the amount of settlement (per the initial contract with the insured). After a jury trial, PAB was awarded compensation, but the trial judge issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The First Department reversed finding there was a valid line of reasoning supporting the award of compensation to PAB based upon its provision of “valuable services” to Seward’s Park when the claim was first made:

A public adjuster is defined by statute as one who, “for money, commission or any other thing of value, acts or aids in any manner on behalf of an insured in negotiating for, or effecting, the settlement of a claim or claims for loss or damage to property of the insured” (Insurance Law § 2101[g][2]). Insurance regulations not only require a compensation agreement for a public adjuster to be entitled to payment (11 NYCRR 25.6), but also prescribe the form of such an agreement (11 NYCRR 25.13[a], form 1), and limit a public adjuster’s right to a fee to circumstances in which “valuable services” were performed: “If a public adjuster performs no valuable services, and another public adjuster, insurance broker … or attorney subsequently successfully adjusts such loss, then the first public adjuster shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever” (11 NYCRR 25.10[b]). However, there is no clear definition of “valuable services,” or what portion of the ultimate settlement must be attributable to the services of the public adjuster for its services to be deemed “valuable” … . * * *

Viewing the foregoing evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that there are valid lines of reasoning that could lead rational jurors to find that although PAB was not directly involved in the trial against the insurance company, it had provided “valuable services” in connection with the ultimate settlement of Seward Park’s insurance claim. These services could have included the preparation of the initial claim forms, the retention of a firm to investigate the damage and repairs, meeting with that firm and with architects, engineers, and counsel to discuss the claim, communicating with the insurance company regarding those repairs, and making Scheer — who was deposed — available to testify at the trial. From this, the jury could have rationally concluded that PAB’s work before trial constituted a valuable contribution to the trial and to the ultimate settlement, if only by preserving Seward Park’s claims and aiding in the damages assessment and investigation. Public Adj Bur., Inc. v Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07942, 1st Dept 10-29-15

, ,

“Bad Faith Claims Handling” Cause of Action Properly Dismissed As Duplicative of Breach of Contract Cause of Action/Sanctions Appropriate for Inclusion of Dismissed Cause of Action in Amended Complaint

The First Department determined a purported cause of action for “bad faith claims handling” in an insurance-coverage dispute was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (and was therefore properly dismissed). The court further determined that attorney sanctions were appropriate for including a dismissed cause of action in an amended complaint. The First Department explained the (rare) circumstance when breach of contract will give rise to a distinct tort cause of action (not the case here):

In some circumstances “[t]he very nature of a contractual obligation, and the public interest in seeing it performed with reasonable care, may give rise to a duty of reasonable care in performance of the contract obligations, and the breach of that independent duty will give rise to a tort claim” …, in which the Court held that “a fire alarm company owed its customer a duty of reasonable care independent of its contractual obligations, and that notwithstanding a contractual provision exculpating the alarm company from damages flowing from its negligence, it could be held liable in tort for its gross failure to properly perform its contractual services” … . Further, “[w]here a party has fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter into a contract, it may be liable in tort” … . However, “where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie” … . Orient Overseas Assoc. v XL Ins. Am., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07788, 1st Dept 10-27-15

 

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