You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , , ,

Elements of Causes of Action for (1) Misappropriation of (a) Trade Secrets, (b) Business Ideas, and (c) Labor, Skills and Expenditures, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (3) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (4) Unjust Enrichment, and (5) Promissory Estoppel Described in Some Detail

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined the complaint stated causes of action against the Cohen defendants for essentially stealing plaintiffs’ ideas for a website. Defendant Cohen, an investor, eventually served as chairman and CEO of a company formed by plaintiffs to develop the website. The complaint alleged that Cohen caused a strain among the partners which stalled the project. Cohen circulated a liquidation agreement which was never addressed by the other partners. Then, the complaint alleged, Cohen took the plaintiffs’ ideas and website-development work to the founders of Pinterest, which, the complaint alleged, was formed based upon the ideas Cohen misappropriated from plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued the Cohen defendants and Pinterest. All the causes of action against Pinterest were dismissed by Supreme Court. The First Department held the complaint stated causes of action against the Cohen defendants for (1) breach of fiduciary duty (under Delaware Law), (2) misappropriation of trade secrets, (3) misappropriation of ideas, (4) and misappropriation of labor, skill and expenditures. (Apparently the unjust enrichment cause of action, which Supreme Court dismissed only re: Pinterest, was not a subject of the appeal.) The First Department found that all the causes of action against Pinterest were properly dismissed.   The opinion includes detailed descriptions of the elements of breach of fiduciary duty (Delaware law), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, misappropriation of ideas, misappropriation of labor, skills and expenditures, and promissory estoppel. The discussions are too extensive to be fairly summarized here.  Schroeder v Pinterest Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07232. 1st Dept 10-6-15

 

,

Unlike a “State Human Rights Law” Cause of Action, a “New York City Human Rights Law” Cause of Action Is Supported If Racial Bias Played “Any Role” (As Opposed to a “Motivating and Substantial Role”) In the Discriminatory Action

The plaintiff alleged he was terminated from employment due to racial bias and sued under the Executive Law (New York State Human Rights Law) and under New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff acknowledged that he was sleeping on the job, a legitimate reason for termination. Plaintiff’s New York State Human Rights Law cause of action was dismissed because plaintiff could not show that racial bias played a “motivating or substantial role” in the termination. But, because the criteria for a cause of action under the New York City Human Rights Law are broader, the New York City Human Rights Law cause of action survived summary judgment. Under the New York City Human Rights Law, if termination was motivated “in part” by racial bias, even though there was a legitimate reason for termination, the termination is actionable:

The Court of Appeals has recognized that the New York City Human Rights Law must be construed “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible” … . Thus, the New York City Human Rights Law is to be more broadly interpreted than similarly worded federal or State antidiscrimination provisions … . The Appellate Division, First Department, has interpreted the New York City Human Rights Law as requiring that unlawful discrimination play ” no role'” in an employment decision … . Our Court has expressed general agreement with the First Department’s interpretation of the New York City Human Rights Law … . Thus, under the broadly worded and broadly interpreted New York City Human Rights Law, if the supervisor’s decision to report the plaintiff was motivated by racial or ethnic animus, even in part, the defendant may be held liable.

The evidence undisputedly established that the plaintiff’s employment was terminated by the defendant because the plaintiff was found to be asleep while on duty, in violation of its rules. Additionally, there was evidence that the defendant had a zero-tolerance policy with respect to violations of that rule. Further, it is also not disputed that the defendant’s no-tolerance policy regarding the termination of the employment of employees found sleeping while on duty is a legitimate policy. Nevertheless, the plaintiff presented evidence that his supervisor reported him to the defendant’s management in part out of racial animus, and did not report other, non-Indian employees who were found sleeping while on duty. Thus, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether his supervisor’s unlawful discrimination, which is to be imputed to the defendant, played a role in the termination of the plaintiff’s employment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of the New York City Human Rights Law … . Singh v Covenant Aviation Sec., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06911, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether City Liable for Shooting by an Off-Duty Police Officer Under Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision Theory—Akin to Negligently Entrusting a Dangerous Instrumentality (Weapon) to Another

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the city was liable for the death of the police officer’s girlfriend (plaintiff’s decedent) under a negligent hiring/retention/supervision theory. The shooting occurred when the officer, Maselli, was off duty in his home. Plaintiff alleged the city had notice of Maselli’s violent propensities:

In this case, the alleged duty owed to plaintiff stems from New York’s long recognized tort of negligent hiring and retention … . This tort applies equally to municipalities and private employers … . This theory of employer liability should be distinguished from the established legal doctrine of “respondeat superior,” where an employer is held liable for the wrongs or negligence of an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s duties or in furtherance of the employer’s interests … . In contrast, under the theory of negligent hiring and retention, an employer may be liable for the acts of an employee acting outside the scope of his or her employment … .

Thus, in this case, plaintiffs’ negligence claims do not depend on whether Maselli acted within the scope of his employment or whether the City participated in, authorized, or ratified Maselli’s tortious conduct. Rather, the alleged breach of duty stems from the claim that during Maselli’s employment with the City, the City became aware or should have become aware of problems with Maselli that indicated he was unfit (i.e. possessed violent propensities), that the City failed to take further action such as an investigation, discharge, or reassignment, and that plaintiff’s damages were caused by the City’s negligent retention, or supervision of Maselli.

The negligent retention or supervision of a police officer, which results in the employee having possession of a dangerous instrumentality, is similar to if not indistinguishable from the tort of entrusting a dangerous instrumentality to another. The duty analysis should be the same. “One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them” … . The duty not to entrust a gun to a dangerous or incompetent police officer thus extends to any person injured as a result of the negligent entrustment. Gonzalez v City of the New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06869, 1st Dept 9-22-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Former Tenants Entitled to Pass Apartment to Their Son Under the Rent Stabilization Law

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether former tenants had stopped using their apartment as a primary residence, or whether they had permanently vacated the apartment. Under the terms of an agreement (Settlement Agreement), if the former tenants had permanently vacated the apartment, they were entitled to pass the apartment to their son, who had been living there most of his life. If, on the other hand, the former tenants merely stopped using the apartment as their primary residence, they could not pass the apartment to their son. The former tenants had moved to Uganda, where they had a home. They returned to New York every year to visit and used the apartment during the visits:

Although the parents no longer have rights to the apartment, there are still disputed issues of fact regarding whether at the time the parents moved to Uganda, they permanently vacated the apartment or continued to use the apartment as nonprimary residents. This issue and disputed facts directly affect the son’s right (if any) to a successor tenancy. If the parents permanently vacated, then the son would have rights as a successor. If, however, the parents continued to use the apartment as non-primary residents, the son’s claim would fail This issue precludes the grant of summary judgment to either side on the issue of whether the son has successor rights.  Waterside Plaza Ground Lessee, LLC v Rwambuya, 2015 NY Slip Op 06867, 1st Dept 9-22-15

 

,

Under the Facts, the Prosecutor Was Not Obligated to Present Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury—Defendant Did Not Exercise His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground the prosecutor did not charge the grand jury on the justification defense was properly denied. The indictment alleged the defendant attacked the victim, Valdez, with a machete. At trial, the defendant testified that Valdez attacked him with a baton and he used a knife in self-defense. It was revealed at trial that Valdez did in fact have a baton at the time of incident, that Valdez had not told the police about the baton, and that, months later, he told the prosecutor about the baton before the matter was presented to the grand jury. The defendant chose not to testify before the grand jury. No mention of the baton, or that the defendant made a statement claiming he acted in self-defense, was made in the grand jury proceedings and the grand jury was not instructed on the justification defense. The First Department held that the prosecutor’s failure, in the grand jury proceedings, to present evidence the victim had a baton, or that defendant stated he acted in self-defense, did not amount to misconduct justifying the dismissal of the indictment. The court emphasized the defendant’s failure to exercise his right to testify before the grand jury to present exculpatory evidence, and explained the nature of the prosecutor’s duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury:

It is axiomatic that a prosecutor, in presenting evidence and potential charges to a grand jury, is ” charged with the duty not only to secure indictments but also to see that justice is done'” … . The role of the grand jury is not only to investigate criminal activity to see whether criminal charges are warranted but also to protect individuals from needless and unfounded charges … . For that reason, justification, as an exculpatory defense that if accepted eliminates any grounds for prosecution, should be presented to the grand jury when warranted by the evidence … . However, a prosecutor, in presenting a case to a grand jury, is “not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in [the People’s] possession that is favorable to the accused . . . In the ordinary case, it is the defendant who, through the exercise of his own right to testify . . . , brings exculpatory evidence to the attention of the Grand Jury” … . Thus, a prosecutor is not obligated to present to the grand jury a defendant’s exculpatory statement made to the police upon arrest … . Where, however, a prosecutor introduces a defendant’s inculpatory statement to the grand jury, he is obligated to introduce an exculpatory statement given during the course of the same interrogation which amplifies the inculpatory statement if it supports a justification defense … . * * *

Assuming arguendo that, as claimed by defendant and denied by the People, the ADA did know about the … baton at the time of the grand jury proceedings, dismissal of the indictment based on the failure to charge the grand jury on justification still would not be warranted. “[A] Grand Jury proceeding is not a mini trial . . . The prosecutor . . . need not disclose certain forms of exculpatory evidence . . . [Nor is] the prosecutor . . . obligated to present the evidence or make statements to the grand jurors in the manner most favorable to the defense” … . As previously noted, a prosecutor is “not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in [the People’s] possession that is favorable to the accused . . . In the ordinary case, it is the defendant who, through the exercise of his own right to testify . . . , brings exculpatory evidence to the attention of the Grand Jury”… . People v Morel, 2015 NY Slip Op 06865, 1st Dept 9-22-15

 

,

Principal’s Failure to Follow the Performance-Rating Procedures Required by the School District and Collective Bargaining Agreement Deprived a School Social Worker of a Fair Review Process—Unsatisfatory Rating (U-Rating) Annulled

The First Department determined the principal’s failure to comply with the relevant performance-rating procedures deprived petitioner, a school social worker, of a fair review process.  Petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) was annulled:

Petitioner establishes that in evaluating her performance, respondents did not adhere to their procedures or those provided in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Special Circular No. 45, a memorandum issued by respondents in response to the mandate set forth in the Commissioner of Education Regulations (8 NYCRR) § 100.2(o), outlines the procedures for rating professional personnel, as does the related manual produced by the New York City Public Schools, entitled Rating Pedagogical Staff Members. Specifically, as a pedagogical employee, petitioner was to be given at least one full period of review during the school year by her principal, followed by a meeting with the principal to discuss her strengths and any areas in need of improvement. Additionally, as a social worker employed at a school, she should have been evaluated by the school principal in consultation with the in-discipline supervisor, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. * * *

…[T]he complete absence of constructive criticism and warnings during the entire school year, compounded by the lack of a formal observation and accompanying feedback during the school year, “undermined the integrity and fairness of the process” … . Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed, and the petition granted to the extent of annulling the U-rating. Matter of Murray v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06866, 1st Dept 9-22-15

 

,

Insurer Must Demonstrate Compliance with 30-Day Notice Requirement Re: an Independent Medical Examination (IME)

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff-insurer’s motion for summary judgment which argued the insurer was not obligated to provide no-fault insurance coverage because defendant did not appear for a scheduled independent medical examination (IME).  In order to be entitled to summary judgment, the insurer was required to show that it notified defendant of the IME within 30 days of the insurer’s receipt of the verification form from the defendant. Plaintiff’s papers did not state when the verification form was received by it.  Therefore, the plaintiff could not show it complied with the 30-day-notice requirement. The court noted that the issue could be determined as a matter of law and the defect could not be cured in reply papers:

“Contrary to the position taken by the dissent, the issue of whether plaintiff has failed to establish that the notices for the IMEs were timely, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(d), presents a question of law which this Court can review. Unlike the dissent, we find that plaintiff was required to submit proof of the timely notice in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Any belated attempt by plaintiff to cure this deficiency in its prima facie showing by submitting evidence for the first time in reply would have been improper…”. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06761, 1st Dept 9-15-15

 

,

Testimony Which Could Have Added Relevant Evidence About the Nature of Plaintiff’s Work (Pre-Injury) and the Effects of the Injuries Should Not Have been Excluded as “Cumulative”

The First Department determined the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) action was entitled to a new trial because the trial judge should not have excluded the testimony of a co-worker and plaintiff’s wife as “cumulative:” The court explained:

“… [A] new trial on damages is necessitated, because we disagree with the court’s preclusion of testimony by plaintiff’s wife and coworker. Testimony is properly precluded as cumulative when it would neither contradict nor add to that of other witnesses … . Here, the testimony of plaintiff’s wife and his coworker would have added to the testimony of other witnesses. First, the coworker saw plaintiff fall, and his testimony as to the impact to plaintiff’s foot could have been highly probative of plaintiff’s claim that the continuing pain in his foot was caused by the accident and did not pre-exist it, as defendants argued. Further, the coworker could have testified as to the particular duties carried out by plaintiff as a heavy-construction carpenter, which would have supported plaintiff’s position that as a result of his injury he could no longer perform that kind of work. To be sure, plaintiff testified about his job duties, but the coworker’s status as a disinterested witness would have given his testimony added value to the jury … . Nor was the proffered testimony of plaintiff’s wife likely to be cumulative, notwithstanding her not having asserted a derivative claim. The wife had a unique perspective on her husband’s condition before and after the accident, and could have assisted the jury in further understanding the extent of his disability and of his pain and suffering.” Segota v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06764, 1st Dept 9-15-15

 

, ,

Plaintiffs Entitled to Damages Re: City’s Failure to Timely Notify Plaintiffs of the Death of a Family Member

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings re: allegations that (1) the City of New York failed to timely notify plaintiffs of the death of a family member (a 36-hour delay in violation of the right of sepulcher) and (2) the City negligently performed an autopsy, which violated the family’s religious beliefs. The First Department determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the “failure to timely notify” causes of action, and the City was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the “negligent performance of an autopsy” cause of action (by statute, in the absence of receipt of an objection on religious grounds, the City has the authority to conduct an autopsy without first seeking consent from the family). With respect to the “failure to timely notify” causes of action, the court wrote:

The first cause of action alleges that as a result of the failure to receive timely notification of the death of Darden Binakaj, plaintiffs sustained emotional injury. The second cause of action specifies that mental anguish resulted from defendants’ interference with the family’s right to the immediate possession of decedent’s body. Thus, these causes of action can be read to advance a claim for violation of the common-law right of sepulcher. * * *

While emotional distress resulting from injury inflicted on another is not compensable under New York law, as the City argues, the emotional harm alleged in this matter is the direct result of the breach of a duty to timely communicate information about a death to plaintiffs themselves … .  In Johnson v State of New York (37 NY2d 378 [1975]), the plaintiff alleged emotional harm as a result of receiving a message that negligently reported the death of her mother, a patient in a state hospital, when in fact the person who had died was another patient with the identical name. The Court of Appeals sustained recovery for emotional suffering on the reasoning that the particular circumstances were associated with ” genuine and serious mental distress . . . which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious'” … . The Court noted that the false message informing the plaintiff of the death and the resulting psychological injury were within the orbit of duty owed by the hospital to the patient’s daughter and that she was entitled to recover for breach of that duty … . Contrary to the City’s contention, Johnson holds that in the case of negligent communications involving the death of a family member, damages are recoverable for purely emotional injury, expressly distinguishing negligent communication that causes emotional suffering from that sustained “solely as a result of injuries inflicted directly upon another, regardless of the relationship” … . The unavoidable implication is that such communication is a ministerial function, as opposed to the discretionary exercise envisioned by the City for which no recovery is available. While the injury alleged in this matter resulted from an untimely rather than false communication, the City’s contention that it cannot be held liable for negligence in informing the plaintiffs about the death of their loved one finds no support under Johnson.

The second cause of action alleges that as a result of the untimely notification, which deprived plaintiffs of any opportunity to state their objection to the autopsy, the City interfered with their right to immediate possession of decedent’s body. As this Court stated in Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp. (64 AD3d 26, 31 [1st Dept 2009]), “the common-law right of sepulcher gives the next of kin an absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body.” Damages are awarded as compensation to the next of kin for the “solely emotional injury” experienced as a result of the interference with their ability to properly bury their decedent … . * * *

As this Court stated:

“[F]or a right of sepulcher claim to accrue (1) there must be interference with the next of kin’s immediate possession of decedent’s body and (2) the interference has caused mental anguish, which is generally presumed. Interference can arise either by unauthorized autopsy or by disposing of the remains inadvertently or, as in this case, by failure to notify the next of kin of the death” … .

The City states no compelling reason to depart from clear precedent to bar a cause of action for loss of sepulcher in this instance … . Rugova v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06754, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff Fell from Temporary Staircase Which Was Wet from Rain

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon his fall from a temporary staircase which was wet from rain. The dissent argued that there was a question of fact whether a safer temporary staircase could have been provided, and, therefore, summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor was not appropriate. The majority wrote:

Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. As the dissent recognizes, plaintiff was engaged in a covered activity at the time he slipped and fell down the stairs of a temporary tower scaffold. A fall down a temporary staircase is the type of elevation-related risk to which section 240(1) applies, and the staircase, which had been erected to allow workers access to different levels of the worksite, is a safety device within the meaning of the statute … . As we stated in Ervin v Consolidated Edison of N.Y. (93 AD3d 485, 485 [1st Dept 2012]), involving a worker who fell when the temporary structure he was descending gave way, “It is irrelevant whether the structure constituted a staircase, ramp, or passageway since it was a safety device that failed to afford him proper protection from a gravity-related risk.” We are thus at a loss to comprehend the dissent’s reasoning that although the temporary staircase was a safety device and although it admittedly did not prevent plaintiff’s fall, there is nonetheless a factual issue which would defeat plaintiff’s entitlement to partial summary judgment on his section 240(1) claim.

The fact that the affidavits of plaintiff’s and defendant’s experts conflict as to the adequacy and safety of the temporary stairs does not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor. A plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on a section 240(1) claim where, as here, stairs prove inadequate to shield him against harm resulting from the force of gravity, and his injuries are at least in part attributable to the defendants’ failure to take mandated safety measures to protect him against an elevation-related risk … . Plaintiff’s expert opined, inter alia, that the stairs showed obvious signs of longstanding use, wear and tear; therefore, a decrease in anti-slip properties was to be expected. Given that it is undisputed that the staircase, a safety device, malfunctioned or was inadequate to protect plaintiff against the risk of falling, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment, whatever the weather conditions might have been. O’Brien v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2015 NY Slip Op 06749, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

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