You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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

 

Late Disclaimer on a Valid Ground Not Excused

The First Department determined the failure to timely disclaim coverage on a valid ground was ineffective. The fact that other grounds for disclaimer might have been investigated does not excuse the late disclaimer: …”Insurance Law § 3420(d) ‘precludes an insurer from delaying issuance of a disclaimer on a ground that the insurer knows to be valid . . . while investigating other possible grounds for disclaiming'”… . Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v Utica First Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07329, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

, , ,

Criteria for the “Fiduciary Exception” to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of a Derivative Action Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in a matter of first impression, developed analytical criteria for determining whether documents sought by the plaintiff major investor (NAMA) in defendant limited liability company (Alliance) (formed for a major real estate development project) were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The documents at issue are communications between the managers of defendant Alliance and their attorneys, defendant Greenberg.  Supreme Court held that the 3000 communications were not protected by attorney-client privilege pursuant to the “fiduciary exception” to the privilege (re: derivative actions) because the interests of the plaintiff were not adverse to Alliance. However, that finding was not based upon a review of the communications. The First Department determined each individual communication must be reviewed to find whether it evinces an adversarial relationship. If so, such “adversity” would be only one factor to weigh in concluding whether “good cause” exists to invoke the “fiduciary exception” to the privilege. The First Department adopted the reasoning of a Fifth Circuit case, Garner v Wolfinbarger, 430 Fed 1093, which sets out a list of factors to be applied in finding good cause to apply the fiduciary exception to the privilege. “Adversity” is but one of those factors:

In the corporate context, where a shareholder (or, as here, an investor in a company) brings suit against corporate management for breach of fiduciary duty or similar wrongdoing, courts have carved out a “fiduciary exception” to the privilege that otherwise attaches to communications between management and corporate counsel. * * *

In 1970, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit extended the fiduciary exception to the corporate environment in Garner v Wolfinbarger (430 F2d 1093 [5th Cir 1970], cert denied 401 US 974 [1971]), for the first time allowing shareholders to use the exception to pierce the corporate attorney-client privilege. The Garner court was persuaded by two English cases that “treat[ed] the relationship between shareholder and company as analogous to that between beneficiaries and trustees” (id. at 1102). Relying on those cases and the traditional crime-fraud and joint-representation exceptions for the proposition that the corporate attorney-client privilege is not absolute, the court summarized its reasoning in the following way:

“[W]here the corporation is in suit against its stockholders on charges of acting inimically to stockholder interests, protection of those interests as well as those of the corporation and of the public require that the availability of the privilege be subject to the right of the stockholders to show cause why it should not be invoked in the particular instance” (id. at 1103-1104). * * *

While some factors in the Garner test are relevant to a determination of adversity, Garner did not create a categorical adversity limitation. Thus, adversity is not a threshold inquiry but a component of the broader good-cause inquiry. Moreover, of the Garner factors that pertain to adversity, some will indicate whether the parties are generally adverse, while others will require a review of the communications in dispute; the relevant factors may weigh against finding good cause to apply the fiduciary exception with respect to those communications that reveal adversity. Accordingly, a court may find that the party seeking disclosure has shown good cause to be given access to some communications but not others. NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 07346, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

Exclusion of Defendant’s Brother from the Courtroom Based Upon the Fear of a Testifying Witness Was Proper, Despite Lack of Express Findings by Trial Judge

The First Department determined the exclusion of a single spectator (defendant’s brother) during the testimony of a witness was proper, despite the absence of express findings by the trial judge. The witness expressed her fear of defendant’s brother. The court explained the analytical criteria:

The People established an overriding interest that warranted a courtroom closure that was limited to the exclusion of a single spectator during the testimony of a single witness … . Contrary to defendant’s arguments, the witness articulated a specific fear of testifying in the presence of defendant’s brother, and we find that this fear justified the limited closure … . The trial court was in the best position to determine whether the witness’ expression of fear rose to a level justifying the closure. We note that the court was aware of the brother’s approach to a different witness. Although “a timely objection . . . would have permitted the court to rectify the situation instantly by making express findings” …, defendant made no such objection, and thus did not preserve his complaint that the court failed to set forth express findings of fact to justify the exclusion of defendant’s brother. Accordingly, we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s ruling “implicitly adopted the People’s particularized showing” and was “specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered” .. . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 07335, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

, ,

Critieria for Amendement of a Notice of Claim Explained

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim to include mention of a defective handrail, despite plaintiff’s failure to invoke the proper statutory authority (General Municipla Law 50-e(5)). The court explained the criteria for an amendment:

Under GML § 50-e(5), a notice of claim may be amended within one year and ninety days of an accident to include new theories of liability … . Plaintiff’s cross motion was made eleven months after the accident, well within the one-year-and-ninety- day limitation period.

In determining whether an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, a court shall consider “whether the public corporation . . . acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the time specified in subdivision one . . . or within a reasonable time thereafter” (GML § 50-e[5]). The court shall also consider “all other relevant facts and circumstances,” including whether the delay “substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits” (id.).

“In determining whether the city was prejudiced by any mistake, omission, irregularity or defect in the notice [of claim], the court may look to evidence adduced at a section 50-h hearing, and to such other evidence as is properly before the court'” … . * * *

We have previously held that prejudice will not be presumed … . Moreover, “[i]t may not be shown without evidence of an attempt to investigate the accident” … . Given defendant’s actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the accident, and the lack of evidence of an attempt to conduct an investigation either before or after it obtained knowledge of the issue concerning the handrail in this accident …, “conclusory assertions of prejudice, based solely on the delay in serving the notice of claim, are insufficient” … . Thomas v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 07328, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

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