You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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

 

Misrepresentations, Distortions, Attacks on the Court, Etc., Included in Motion Papers Warranted Sanctions Against Attorney

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, with two concurring memoranda, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Saxe, determined Supreme Court properly sanctioned one of the two attorneys who represented a 94-year-old woman in guardianship proceedings. Supreme Court’s sanctioning of a second attorney and denial of all attorney’s fees were reversed. The sanctions stemmed from motion papers which, Supreme Court found, included misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, and attacks on the court and others which were wholly without merit and made in bad faith. The court explained the applicable law:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) and (b), the court, “in its discretion,” may award costs, including attorney’s fees, as well as impose financial sanctions against an attorney or firm that engages in “frivolous conduct.” When determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court must consider the circumstances under which the conduct took place and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent or should have been apparent (22 NYCRR 130—1.1[c]). Furthermore, “[t]rial judges should be accorded wide latitude to determine the appropriate sanctions for dilatory and improper attorney conduct and we will defer to a trial court regarding sanctions determinations unless there is a clear abuse of discretion” … .

22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) sets forth three categories of “frivolous conduct”: “(1) [conduct which] is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law”; “(2) [conduct which] is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another”; or “(3) [conduct which] asserts material factual statements that are false.” “Conduct which violates any of the three subdivisions [of Section 130-1.1(c)] is grounds for the imposition of sanctions” … . Thus, sanctions and costs have been imposed for insulting behavior to opposing counsel, baseless ad hominem attacks against the court and opposing party, and mischaracterization of the record … .

Upon our review of the record, we hold that the court’s finding that the orders to show cause submitted in Motion Seq. Nos. 2 & 4 were based on material false statements, which constituted frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1(c)(3) warranting the imposition of costs, including attorneys’ fees, and a monetary sanction, was not a clear abuse of discretion … . Matter of Kover, 2015 NY Slip Op 07802, 1st Dept 10-27-15

 

,

Police Did Have Sufficient Suspicion to Justify Telling Defendant to Drop a Bag He Was Holding—Suppression Should Have Been Granted

The First Department determined the police did not have a founded suspicion criminal activity was afoot when they directed defendant to drop a bag he was holding. Therefore defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted:

The police officers’ initial approach and their intrusion upon defendant’s freedom by directing that he drop the bag were unsupported by a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot necessary to the exercise of the common-law right to inquire … . The officers approached defendant based solely on their observation of him carrying a shopping bag or gift bag that seemed rigid. While one officer testified that, based on his experience, he thought it might be a “booster bag” used for shoplifting, he essentially described an ordinary shopping bag. Further, it was conceded that defendant was not free to leave at the time he was ordered to drop the bag and its use as a booster bag became apparent. Defendant’s innocuous behavior in walking in and out of a store with the bag and his ensuing behavior did not justify further interference to obtain explanatory information … . People v Ties, 2015 NY Slip Op 07753, 1st Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Securities Did Not Pass Outside the Estate, Requirements of Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) Not Me

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a concurring opinion arguing the matter had already been determined by Surrogate’s Court, determined a letter sent by decedent to Merrill Lynch did not meet the requirements of the Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) such that the securities account passed to the beneficiary outside the estate:

In order to take advantage of New York’s [TODSRA] law, certain categories of owners may request that a security be registered in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.2). The institution holding the securities account, however, is not required to either offer or accept a request to register a security in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.8). It is only if the owner requests that a security be held in beneficiary form and the entity holding the security accepts the designation, that an enforceable contractual relationship is created between the owner and that registering entity, requiring the registering entity to act in accordance with the designation (EPTL 13-4.9). Under TODSRA, the registering entity has the sole right to establish the terms and conditions under which it will receive and implement requests to register securities in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.10), and TODSRA statutorily mandates that the registering entity have certain protections in the process (EPTL 13-4.8).

A registering entity is not the owner of the security, but rather the person or entity that originates or transfers title to a security by registration, which includes a broker such as defendant (EPTL 13-4.1[i]). Thus, under the statute, it is perfectly clear that a unilateral action by an owner of a securities account to designate a beneficiary in the event of death is not by itself sufficient. Arroyo-Graulau v Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07774, 1st Dept 10-22-15

 

Prejudice Which Would Preclude Amendment of an Answer Must Stem from a Right Lost in the Interim Between the Original Answer and the Application to Amend

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Environmental) should have been allowed to amend its answer to deny its employee (Tompkins) was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident at issue occurred. The court explained that plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice from the amendment, as the term “prejudice” is to be understood in this context:

A proper showing of prejudice must be “traceable not simply to the new matter sought to be added, but also to the fact that it is only now being added. There must be some special right lost in the interim, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained what the amended one wants to add” … . Plaintiff has made no such showing. In her opposition before the motion court, plaintiff asserted that she would be prejudiced by the amendment because Environmental “would be vicariously liable for the acts of [Thomas] Tompkins,” if Tompkins was operating the vehicle within the scope of his employment. This is not the kind of significant prejudice necessary to deny an amendment to the pleading, as plaintiff would suffer the same “prejudice” if Environmental had raised its scope-of-employment defense in its initial answer. Williams v Tompkins, 2015 NY Slip Op 07598, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

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