You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

School’s Knowledge that Infant-Plaintiff Was Being Taunted and Bullied Did Not Constitute Notice that Another Student Would Act Violently Toward Infant-Plaintiff—Supervision Could Not Have Prevented the Sudden Action by the Student Who Pushed Infant-Plaintiff

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the defendant New York City public school was entitled to summary judgment dismissing infant-plaintiff’s “negligent supervision” complaint. Infant-plaintiff had been taunted and bullied by a fellow student, referred to in the decision as WEM. Infant-plaintiff was injured when WEM pushed him into a bookcase. Although infant-plaintiff’s teacher had been notified of WEM’s bullying on the day of the incident, and the school administration had been notified infant-plaintiff was being taunted and bullied by (unidentified) students, the majority concluded the school was not on notice that WEM would act violently toward infant-plaintiff, and, even if the school had been so notified, the sudden incident could not have been prevented by supervision. The majority wrote:

Initially, while “schools have a duty to adequately supervise their students, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” …, “unanticipated third-party acts causing injury upon a fellow student will generally not give rise to a school’s liability in negligence absent actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct” … . Here, the record contains no evidence that the school had notice that WEM had a proclivity to engage in physically aggressive conduct. The evidence that plaintiff had complained to his teacher and others that WEM was “picking on him” and calling him names, and that his mother had called the principal’s office and reported that some unidentified boys were “picking on her son,” when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, shows only that the school knew that WEM had been picking on plaintiff verbally. Knowledge of such taunting, however, did not give the school “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice” of “prior conduct similar to the unanticipated injury-causing act” by WEM to support a finding of actual or constructive notice of the risk that he would engage in violent or physically aggressive behavior against plaintiff … .

Summary judgment is also warranted because plaintiff has not raised an issue as to proximate causation. There is no non-speculative basis for finding that any greater level of supervision than was provided would have prevented the sudden and spontaneous altercation between the two students. “Schools are not insurers of safety” and “cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . Emmanuel B. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06750, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

,

Error to Charge Jury on Comparative Negligence/Inadequate Awards for Pain and Suffering and Loss of Consortium

The First Department determined the jury should not have been charged on comparative negligence in this Labor Law 241 (6) action. Plaintiff’s decedent was injured when he tripped and fell over construction debris. Because defendant was obligated to keep the area clear of debris, and because there was no clear path plaintiff’s decedent could use, the comparative negligence jury instruction was not warranted. The First Department further determined that the award for pain of suffering ($100,000) was inadequate and the failure to award any damages for loss of consortium was against the weight of the evidence and rendered the verdict inconsistent. Pursuant to plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, a new trial was ordered unless defendant agreed to a $400,000 award for pain and suffering and a $50,000 award for loss of consortium:

The evidence established that, as a result of his hand injury, [plaintiff’s decedent] developed, inter alia, nerve damage, painful symptoms consistent with reflex sympathetic dystrophy, anxiety, and significant limitation of the use of his left hand due to permanent contracture of the fingers. Upon a review of other relevant cases, we find that the award of $100,000 for pain and suffering materially deviates from reasonable compensation … .

The jury’s decision not to award damages to plaintiff (wife) for loss of consortium was against the weight of the evidence … . Plaintiff (wife) described significant changes in [plaintiff’s decedent’s] behavior after his accident and explained the impact this had on their relationship. On this record, the jury’s decision to award damages for pain and suffering, but none for loss of consortium, is inconsistent. Kutza v Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06753, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

,

Supreme Court Erred When It Ruled Plaintiff Had “Defaulted” on Its Summary Judgment Motion by Failing to Appear for Oral Argument

The First Department affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment on the merits in a breach of contract action. However, the First Department noted that the alternative ground for Supreme Court’s ruling, i.e., that plaintiff had “defaulted” on its motion by failing to appear for oral argument, was not appropriate:

We find … that Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff had “default[ed]” on this motion. We fail to perceive the conduct that constituted plaintiff’s default. It was plaintiff who submitted the motion for summary judgment. Typically, a motion for summary judgment can be readily decided on the papers unless oral argument is mandated by the motion court as “necessary.” Nothing in the record before us suggests that the parties were on notice that oral argument was indispensable for resolution of plaintiff’s motion. Indeed, when Supreme Court ultimately rendered its decision on the record, counsel for both parties were present. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by disposing of the motion on the procedural ground sua sponte imposed by the court. All State Flooring Distribs., L.P. v MD Floors, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06751, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

Passenger in Recreational Go-Kart Assumed the Risk of Injury Caused by Being “Bumped” by Another Go-Kart

The First Department determined plaintiff, a passenger in an electric, recreational go-kart, assumed the risk of injury alleged to have been caused by the go-kart being “bumped” by other go-karts. The court noted that (1) the written waiver of liability signed by the plaintiff was void as against public policy, and (2) the go-kart operator had a written policy prohibiting intentional “bumping,” but held that the common-law assumption of risk doctrine nevertheless applied:

[The “assumption of risk”] doctrine applies to “certain types of athletic or recreational activities,” where “a plaintiff who freely accepts a known risk commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk'” … . While “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others, or risks that are concealed or unreasonably enhanced” …, the concept of a “known” risk includes “apparent or reasonably foreseeable” risks inherent in the activity … .

The activity in which plaintiff engaged is a type to which the assumption of risk doctrine is appropriately applied. “In riding the go-cart, the plaintiff . . . assumed the risks inherent in the activity” … . Those risks included the risk “that the go-cart would bump into objects” … . Of course, the “apparent or reasonably foreseeable” risks inherent in go-karting also include the risk that vehicles racing around the track may intentionally or unintentionally collide with or bump into other go-karts. It is that inherent risk which “negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard [plaintiff] from the risk” … . Garnett v Strike Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06694, 1st Dept 9-1-15

 

, ,

Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate the Sale Were Excluded from the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA)—Doctrine of “De Facto Merger” Did Not Apply in Absence of “Continuity of Ownership”

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined that the buyer of a business (TBA Buyer) did not assume the seller’s (TBA Seller’s) obligation to pay a financial advisor (Fidus) hired by TBA Seller to find a buyer and facilitate a sale. The opinion focused on the precise language of the asset purchase agreement (APA) and held that any monies owed by TBA Seller to Fidus were excluded, by the terms of the APA, from the assets and liabilities TBA Buyer purchased. Much of the opinion addresses the arguments made by the dissent. With respect to the dissent’s argument that TBA Buyer assumed TBA Seller’s obligation to pay Fidus under the “de facto merger” doctrine, the majority wrote:

While the general rule is that, absent a merger or consolidation, an entity purchasing the assets of another entity does not thereby acquire liabilities of the seller not expressly transferred in the sale …, a purchase-of-assets transaction may be deemed to constitute a de facto merger between seller and buyer, even if not formally structured as such, under certain conditions … . We have recognized, however, that “the essence of a merger” … is the element of continuity of ownership, which

“exists where the shareholders of the predecessor corporation become direct or indirect shareholders of the successor corporation as the result of the successor’s purchase of the predecessor’s assets, as occurs in a stock-for-assets transaction. Stated otherwise, continuity of ownership describes a situation where the parties to the transaction become owners together of what formerly belonged to each'” … . * * *

… [U]nder New York law, continuity of ownership is “the touchstone of the [de facto merger] concept” and “thus a necessary predicate to a finding of de facto merger” … . The purpose of requiring continuity of ownership is “to identify situations where the shareholders of a seller corporation retain some ownership interest in their assets after cleansing those assets of liability” … . Stated otherwise, “[t]he fact that the seller’s owners retain their interest in the supposedly sold assets (through their ownership interest in the purchaser) is the substance’ which makes the transaction inequitable” … . By contrast, where a “buyer pays a bona fide, arms-length price for the assets, there is no unfairness to creditors in . . . limiting recovery to the proceeds of the sale — cash or other consideration roughly equal to the value of the purchased assets would take the place of the purchased assets as a resource for satisfying the seller’s debts” … . Thus, “allowing creditors to collect against the purchasers of insolvent debtors’ assets would give the creditors a windfall by increasing the funds available compared to what would have been available if no sale had taken place” … .

In this case, there is no continuity of ownership between TBA Seller and TBA Buyer because, as the record establishes (and Fidus does not dispute), none of TBA Seller’s owners acquired a direct or indirect interest in TBA Buyer (and thus in the transferred assets) as a result of the asset purchase transaction … .  Matter of TBA Global, LLC v Fidus Partners, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06698, 1st Dept 9-1-15

 

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Re: Fall from Non-Defective Ladder After Co-Worker Who Had Been Stabilizing the Ladder Was Called Away—Defendants Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff Was Adequately Protected—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell from a non-defective ladder when he lost his balance while attempting to use a drill to install a metal stud.  A co-worker, who had been stabilizing the ladder, had been called away five minutes before plaintiff fell. Plaintiff alleged no one else was around who could have stabilized the ladder. The court noted that plaintiff’s alleged comparative negligence was not relevant. The only relevant consideration is whether plaintiff was provided with adequate protection, an issue not addressed by defendants:

Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against defendants on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The dissent mischaracterizes the majority’s position. We do not simply hold that “a plaintiff-worker’s testimony that he fell from a non-defective ladder while performing work . . . alone establish[es] liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Rather, it is undisputed that no equipment was provided to plaintiff to guard against the risk of falling from the ladder while operating the drill, and that plaintiff’s coworker was not stabilizing the ladder at the time of the fall. Under the circumstances, we find that plaintiff’s testimony that he fell from the ladder while performing drilling work established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . In response, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred or whether the A-frame ladder provided adequate protection. Their arguments that plaintiff caused his own injuries, by allegedly placing himself in a position where he had to lean and reach around the side of the ladder to fix the wall stud, at most establish comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Caceres v Standard Realty Assoc., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06645, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

,

“At Will” Employee Stated a Cause of Action Alleging Defendants Fraudulently Induced Him to Take the “At Will” Job

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for fraud in the inducement in connection with plaintiff’s acceptance of “at will” employment with defendants. The complaint alleged that defendants induced plaintiff to leave his well-compensated position with J P Morgan by falsely indicating plaintiff was being hired because of defendants’ heavy work load. The complaint further alleged that defendants did not have much work and plaintiff was hired solely to provide defendants with his business contacts. After turning over his business contacts, plaintiff alleged, defendants terminated him, claiming there was not enough work to support his position. The First Department reasoned plaintiff was not seeking damages for wrongful termination, which is not available for an “at will” employee, but rather was seeking damages for defendants’ fraudulently inducing him to give up his lucrative employment with J P Morgan in order to take the “at will” employment. The court further noted that the “general” merger clause in the “at will” employment contract did not preclude the action and the action concerned statements of material existing fact, not (nonactionable) statements of future expectations:

An at-will employee, who has been terminated, can not state a fraudulent inducement claim on the basis of having relied upon the employer’s promise not to terminate the contract … , or upon any representations of future intentions as to the duration or security of his employment … . However, where an at-will employee alleges an injury “separate and distinct from termination of the [his] employment,” he may have a cause of action for fraudulent inducement … . The at-will employee must allege not that his employer wrongly fired him, but that “[he] would not have taken the job in the first place if the true facts had been revealed to [him]” … .

Plaintiff does not allege that defendants wrongfully terminated him. He claims that they misrepresented the nature of the job that they were hiring him to do, that they were only hiring him to gain access to his contacts and that if they had told him this he would not have left his job at J.P. Morgan to work for them. Indeed, plaintiff’s injury preceded his termination.

Nor are plaintiff’s damages speculative, since he alleged that they stem not from his loss of employment with defendants, but from his loss of employment with J.P. Morgan. These damages represent “the sum necessary for restoration to the position occupied before the commission of the fraud” … . Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06646, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law 240 (1) for injury incurred while using the top half of an extension ladder which did not have rubber feet. The court noted that contributory or comparative negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action:

Plaintiff presented evidence establishing that defendants did not provide “proper protection” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The record indicates that plaintiff “only saw the extension ladder” in the area where he was working. There was no scaffolding available to plaintiff. Plaintiff was not wearing a safety harness, and there was no appropriate anchor point to tie off the ladder.

We reject defendants’ assertion that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff’s knowing use of half of the extension ladder without proper rubber footings goes to his culpable conduct and comparative negligence. Comparative negligence is not a defense to a claim based on Labor Law § 240(1), where, as here, defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices … . Further, defendants failed to show that plaintiff refused to use the safety devices that were provided to him. Stankey v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06643, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds—Analytical Criteria Explained

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s action on “forum non conveniens” grounds. The action concerned a lease and guaranty for property located in Georgia, but the property itself was not part of the dispute. Both parties were authorized to do business in New York, plaintiff’s principal place of business was in New York, the lease was executed in New York and the guaranty was executed in New Jersey. The fact that Georgia law was to be applied (by the terms of the contract) did not control. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Generally, “unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed” … .

“The burden rests upon the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant . . . factors which militate against accepting the litigation and the court, after considering and balancing the various competing factors, must determine in the exercise of its sound discretion whether to retain jurisdiction or not” … . “Among the factors to be considered are the burden on the New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum” … .

The court may also consider the residency of the parties and where the transaction out of which the case arose occurred … . “No one factor is controlling . . . [t]he great advantage of the rule of forum non conveniens is its flexibility based upon the facts and circumstances of each case” … . Here, there is a substantial nexus to New York.

“Although the residence of a plaintiff is not the sole determining factor on a motion for dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens, it has been held to generally be the most significant factor in the equation” … . As the motion court acknowledged, in this case both parties are authorized to do business in New York and the plaintiff’s principal place of business is in New York. While the real property that is the subject of the lease and guaranty is located in Georgia, the actual property is not at issue in this case. In any event, the lease was actually executed in New York and some of the correspondence was sent to the nonparty tenant at a New York address. Moreover, the guaranty which is the subject of this litigation was executed in New Jersey and the defendant guarantor, a New Jersey corporation with its principal executive office in New Jersey, does not conduct any business in Georgia. While counsel for the nonparty tenant submitted an affidavit listing several potential witnesses who are located in either Georgia or Tennessee, there is no indication as to what knowledge these proposed witnesses have relating to the issues in this case, or whether they would even testify. Thor Gallery at S. DeKalb, LLC v Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06644, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

, ,

Arbitrator’s Ruling that, Under the Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a Bus Driver Could Not Be Disciplined for Sexual Harassment While He Was On Union-Paid “Release Time,” Violated the Public Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the facts of the case presented a rare instance when the arbitrator’s resolution of a matter covered by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) violated public policy. A bus driver, Aiken, was accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker. Shortly thereafter the union requested of the Transit Authority that Aiken be placed on union-paid “release time” and the Transit Authority did so. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found the bus driver had violated the Transit Authority’s sexual harassment policy and recommended corrective action. Aiken did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings (which resulted in Aiken’s termination) on the ground that, under the terms of the CBA, the Transit Authority did not have the authority to impose discipline while he was on union-paid “release time.” An arbitrator ultimately agreed with Aiken and reinstated him. The First Department noted that the arbitrator’s award was supported by the terms of the CBA, but held the award violated the strong public policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace:

The scope of the public policy exception to an arbitrator’s power to resolve disputes is extremely narrow, and courts will only intervene in ” cases in which public policy considerations, embodied in statute or decisional law, prohibit, in an absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being granted by an arbitrator'” … . In other words, under this analysis, we must focus on the result only, and can vacate the award if it intrudes into areas reserved for others to resolve; or if, because of its reach, the award violates an explicit law of this State. Moreover, “courts must be able to examine an arbitration … award on its face, without engaging in extended fact finding or legal analysis, and conclude that public policy precludes its enforcement” … . * * *

We … find it nececessary to intervene … because the arbitrator construed the CBA and fashioned a remedy in a manner that conflicts with a well-defined and dominant public policy. The public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace is well recognized. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex (42 USC § 2000e-2[a][1]). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC), which administers and enforces this provision, has promulgated a guideline that states:

Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Sec. 703 of Title VII. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when … such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment (29 CFR 1604.11[a][3]).

Moreover, Title VII places upon an employer the responsibility to maintain a workplace environment free of sexual harassment. The EEOC Guidelines make employers liable for sexual harassment between fellow employees of which it knew or should have known, “unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action” (29 CFR § 1604.11[d]). The EEOC Guidelines indicate that employers should take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring in the employment setting, such as affirmatively raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise and how to raise the issue of harassment under Title VII, and developing methods to sensitize all concerned (29 CFR § 1604.11[f]). The EEOC Compliance Manual further provides that employers should create a procedure for resolving sexual harassment complaints that encourages victims of sexual harassment to come forward …  “It should ensure confidentiality as much as possible and provide effective remedies, including protection of victims and witnesses against retaliation” … .

New York has similar legislation and rules … . Furthermore, the protections afforded employees under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) are more expansive than those provided under analogous provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964… . Matter of Phillips v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06564, 1st Dept 8-18-15

 

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