You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

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

 

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Insufficient to Demonstrate Lack of Notice of Dangerous Condition

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined proof of a janitorial cleaning schedule was not sufficient to demonstrate defendant’s lack of notice of a dangerous condition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Defendant building owner moved for summary judgment solely on the basis that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, a missing drain cover in the building’s laundry room. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that it did not have constructive notice … . Although the building superintendent testified that he routinely swept the laundry room every morning at 8:00 a.m. and performed daily inspections of the building, including the laundry room, at 11:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. each day, mere proof of a set janitorial schedule does not prove that it was followed on the day of the accident, or eliminate the issue of constructive notice in this case … . The superintendent could not recall whether he had checked the laundry room on the day of the accident or offer any other evidence regarding the last time he inspected the laundry room prior to the accident … . He explicitly stated that he did know whether the allegedly defective condition existed on that date. Dylan P. v Webster Place Assoc., L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 07600, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

,

Judicial Notice and Collateral Estoppel Re: Philippine Law and a Philippine Court Order Improperly Applied—Related Conspiracy Conviction Vacated/Emails and Newspaper Articles, Although Hearsay, Properly Admitted

The First Department, in a prosecution stemming from the failure to pay tax on the sale of a painting, determined Supreme Court improperly took judicial notice of the law of the Philippines and improperly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel (based upon a Philippine court order). The painting once belonged to Imelda Marcos when she was the First Lady of the Philippines. Under Philippine law, the painting allegedly should have been forfeited to the people of the Philippines. Defendant (with others) completed the sale of the painting for $32 million. The First Department vacated the conspiracy conviction because of the misapplication of Philippine law, but affirmed the crIminal tax fraud and “filing a false instrument” convictions. In addition to discussing the misapplication of Philippine law and the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the First Department held that emails, although hearsay, were properly admitted to show conduct (not for the truth of the content) and newspaper articles, although hearsay, were properly admitted to show defendant knew the Philippine government was trying to recover the painting (state-of-mind exception):

The trial court erred in reading or paraphrasing approximately eight sentences from an order of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines in a proceeding commenced by the Republic against Imelda Marcos and others, where the Philippine court granted summary judgment in favor of the petition, and ordered that more than $658 million held mostly in Swiss bank accounts be forfeited to the Republic. Only one sentence read by the court to the jury purported to state the law of the Philippines, namely Philippine Republic Act No. 1379, which provides that any property acquired by a public official during his or her term of public service that is “manifestly out of proportion” to the official’s public salary and any other lawful income “shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.” The remaining portions of the opinion read to the jury consisted of fact findings, and thus were not proper subjects of judicial notice pursuant to CPLR 4511(b) … .

The court implicitly applied collateral estoppel, which was inapplicable even under the standards governing civil cases, since defendant was not a party to the Philippine case and had no opportunity to litigate the issues therein; moreover, collateral estoppel should be applied with more caution in criminal cases than in civil … . The court further erred in paraphrasing the opinion without clarifying the rebuttable nature of the presumption under the Philippines law, and that error was compounded by the court’s ruling precluding defense counsel from addressing that point in summation. …

The court properly admitted emails exchanged between two of defendant’s alleged coconspirators, her nephews, under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the People made a prima facie showing of conspiracy “without recourse to the declarations sought to be introduced” … . There was testimony indicating that one of defendant’s nephews extensively participated in the painting sale at issue, and defendant sent $100,000 of the proceeds to him. Defendant also sent $5 million of the proceeds to the other nephew. Although defendant notes that the court relied in part on the emails at issue, the messages were properly considered to demonstrate the nephews’ conduct, such as offering or arranging to offer certain prices and forwarding photographs of paintings to potential buyers, rather than for the truth of the messages … .

Under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule …, the court properly admitted news articles and other documents, recovered in a search of defendant’s home, concerning the Philippine government’s efforts to recover artworks allegedly misappropriated by the Marcos administration. The circumstances warranted a reasonable inference that defendant was aware of these documents and their contents … , establishing her motive to conceal the sale of a painting allegedly given to her by the former First Lady. Thus, the evidence tended to rebut the defense argument that defendant’s failure to report her income from the sale on her tax returns was not necessarily intentional. People v Bautista, 2015 NY Slip Op 07589, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

,

Loud Argument With Another Teacher In Front of Students Did Not Justify an Unsatisfactory Rating and Discharge of Probationary Teacher

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for a probationary teacher lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious. Her termination, therefore, was based upon a deficiency in the review process which undermined its fairness. The U-rating and termination stemmed from a “loud” argument with another teacher in front of students. The majority concluded the evidence about the argument did not support a finding of insubordination and unprofessional conduct. The dissent argued there was a rational basis for the respondent’s rulings and, under the principles of administrative law, the court was powerless to substitute its own judgment:

We hold that the U-rating for the summer of 2011 lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious. Even accepting the testimony that petitioner engaged in a loud argument with another teacher about sharing a room, there is no rational basis to find petitioner’s conduct was unprofessional, insubordinate or unbecoming. Here, the subject of the argument concerned whether petitioner’s students with disabilities should share space with students that composed the art cluster or obtain a larger classroom. There was no evidence presented that the content of conversation itself was unprofessional. The simple conduct of an argument without more elaboration on how the subject and language of the conversation was unprofessional is insufficient to provide a rational basis for professional misconduct.

As to the termination of petitioner’s employment, it is well established that a “probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [the] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law” … . Nonetheless, given the failure to establish a rational basis for the summer 2011 U-rating, petitioner established a deficiency in the review process to terminate petitioner’s employment that was “not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process” … . Matter of Mendez v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 07599, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

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

 

Conviction Based Upon Plea Where Defendant Was Not Advised of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Is Unconstitutional for Predicate Felony Purposes—Catu Applied Retroactively

The First Department determined a 2002 conviction based upon a (pre-Catu) plea during which defendant was not advised of the period of postrelease supervision is unconstitutional for predicate felony purposes:

CPL 400.15(7)(b) provides: “A previous conviction . . . which was obtained in violation of the rights of the defendant under the applicable provisions of the constitution of the United States must not be counted in determining whether the defendant has been subjected to a predicate felony conviction” … . Because a conviction obtained in violation of Catu implicates rights under the federal Constitution as well as the state constitution (see Catu, 4 NY3d at 245 …), the court properly granted defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion and vacated his sentence as a second violent felony offender on the ground that his 2002 conviction could not be counted as a predicate felony under CPL 400.15(7)(b).

The underlying conviction preceded the Catu decision. However, contrary to the People’s contention, we find that the rule of law announced in Catu applies retroactively to pre-Catu convictions … . People v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 07565, 1st Dept 10-15-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Actions Were Sole Proximate Cause of His Injury

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined that was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injury in a Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff stood on concrete blocks to work on a billboard, fell and was injured. Plaintiff had access to a cherry picker, ladders and safety harnesses but did not use them. Although plaintiff argued none of the safety devices were usable, the defendant raised a question of fact whether the safety devices could have been used:

Here, the record includes conflicting evidence regarding whether plaintiff was provided with adequate safety devices but failed to use them, which raises a triable issue of fact whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Unlike cases where a plaintiff was injured when he used his discretion to choose one of several safety devices provided and that device proved inadequate, in this case plaintiff was supplied with four safety devices and chose not to use any of them, electing instead to go straight to the concrete blocks, whose intended purpose was to act as a counterweight, not as a platform. * * *

… [A]n issue exists as to whether safe alternative means of painting the billboard were available to plaintiff and whether his failure to use those means was the sole proximate cause of his accident… . Quinones v Olmstead Props., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07571, 1st Dept 10-15-15

 

,

Where Equitable Relief Described in “Sole Remedy Clause” is Impossible, Monetary Damages Are Available

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, in a case addressing many specific-contract-provision issues not summarized here, determined that where the sole remedy clause of a contract allows only equitable relief, and that equitable relief is impossible, monetary damages may be available. The action stems from the collapse of the residential mortgage -backed securities (RSMB) market. The complaints alleged the breach of several representations and warranties (concerning the underlying mortgages) in the mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA). The “sole remedy clause” in the agreement purported to limit relief to the defendant’s repurchase of defective mortgages. However repurchase of foreclosed or liquidated mortgages was impossible. In that situation, the First Department held, equity allows the imposition of monetary damages:

Under defendant’s interpretation of the “sole remedy” clause, loans that have been foreclosed upon or liquidated cannot be repurchased and, by agreeing to those provisions, plaintiff accepted the risk of loss such an event would entail. However, such an interpretation would leave plaintiffs without a remedy with respect to those loans, as their only recourse would be to commence an action for specific performance, which would be impossible to fulfill. The present state of the law does not support defendant’s contention.

New York law has long held that contracting parties are generally free to limit their remedies. “A limitation on liability provision in a contract represents the parties’ agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor” … . Therefore, by the terms of the “sole remedy” clause, the agreements limit plaintiffs to seeking an order of specific performance requiring defendant to repurchase the defective loans at the purchase price defined in those agreements, or to cure the defects in those loans.

However, specific performance is an equitable remedy. In the RMBS context, most courts have repeatedly held that “while a provision providing for equitable relief as the sole remedy’ will generally foreclose alternative relief, where the granting of equitable relief appears to be impossible or impracticable, equity may award damages in lieu of the desired equitable remedy'” … . Such a rule makes sense, for to hold otherwise would create a “perverse[]” incentive for a sponsor “to fill the trust with junk mortgages that would expeditiously default so that they could be released, charged off, or liquidated before a repurchase claim is made” … . Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 v Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07458, 1st Dept 10-13-15

 

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