You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

Bringing a Cause of Action Under the Whistleblower Statute Alleging Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct Does Not Bar Claims Arising from the Misconduct Itself (Here Claims of Sexual Harassment)

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined that a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law 740, the whistleblower statute, did not bar the underlying sexual harassment and negligence claims reported by the whistleblowers.  Labor Law 740 prohibits retaliation for blowing the whistle, which is distinct from claims arising from the misconduct which was reported:

In dispute is the scope of Labor Law § 740 (7), which provides:

“Existing rights. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other law or regulation or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of an action in accordance with this section shall be deemed a waiver of the rights and remedies available under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, law, rule or regulation or under the common law.”

This provision makes clear that the terminated employee is neither compelled to bring an action under the statute nor limited to the relief it affords but may pursue any other available remedy. However, if the employee chooses to institute an action pursuant to the statute, any alternative means of redress is thereby waived.

Central to the assessment of the scope of this waiver is the purpose of the statute, both with respect to the abuse it is intended to remedy and the relief it provides. It prohibits “retaliatory personnel action” against an employee who undertakes to disclose conduct in violation of any law or regulation, who furnishes information to an investigatory body in regard to such activity or who refuses to participate in such activity (Labor Law § 740 [2]). Notably, statutory relief is confined to wrongful termination; no redress is provided to the victims of the underlying misconduct. The statute specifically addresses the termination of an employee who witnesses and reports misconduct. It is not so broad as to encompass the circumstances at bar, in which plaintiffs were not only terminated for revealing abuse by senior managers but were also targeted and victimized by that abuse. Lee v Woori Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 06299, 1st Dept 7-28-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff’s Use of a Partially Open A-Frame Ladder Did Not Constitute Misuse of a Safety Device—Directed Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff on Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Was Proper/Plaintiff’s Apparent Failure to Turn Over All of the Relevant Medical Records Required a New Trial on Damages

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the court, after a jury trial, properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was using an A-frame ladder to weld a tank. It was not possible to open the ladder completely unless the ladder was perpendicular to the tank. Because using the ladder in a perpendicular position would have forced plaintiff to twist his body to weld, plaintiff placed the ladder against the tank in a partially open position. The ladder “shook” and plaintiff fell off it. The First Department held that, under those facts, the way plaintiff used the ladder did not constitute misuse of a safety device and, because Labor Law 240(1) was violated, plaintiff’s action could not constitute the sole proximate cause of the injury. A new trial was required, however, because the medical records supplied to the defendants pursuant to a subpoena were much less voluminous than the medical records brought to trial by the plaintiff’s medical expert, thereby depriving the defendants of the ability to fully cross-examine the expert:

A verdict may be directed only if the “court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” … . The benefit of all inferences is afforded to the non moving party, and the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to it (id.). Here, plaintiff argued that there was no issue of fact necessary for a jury to resolve regarding whether defendants violated their obligation under Labor Law § 240(1) to provide him with an appropriate safety device to guard against the elevation-related risk. That is because, he asserts, there was no alternative safety device readily available to him, and he had no choice but to place the ladder in the closed position given the way the tank was situated. Defendants do not dispute that an unsecured ladder, even one in good condition, can give rise to Labor Law section 240(1) liability if the worker falls from it * * *

A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident … . To be sure, we do not disagree with the dissent that, in principle, placement of an A-frame ladder in the closed position “can constitute misuse of a safety device”…. . * * *

Here, plaintiff gave a specific reason why he used the ladder in the closed position. Plaintiff testified that using the ladder in an open position and twisting his body to face the tank would have been exhausting, requiring him to take frequent breaks, which defendants did not dispute. Indeed, defendants’ assertion that turning the ladder would have presented an issue of “[m]ere expediency or inconvenience” mischaracterizes the record. In any event, we are hesitant to adopt a rule that, in order to permit a worker to enjoy the protection of Labor Law section 240(1), would require him to take extraordinary measures to perform his work, when he has a good faith belief that doing so would cause him acute discomfort while drastically slowing his pace … . Noor v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06295, 1st Dept 7-28-15

 

Petition for Late Approval (Eight Years Late) of a Settlement of a Third-Party Tort Action Nunc Pro Tunc Should Have Been Granted

The First Department determined the Court of Claims abused its discretion when it denied claimant’s late petition to approve a settlement of a third-party tort action nunc pro tunc. The carrier had been aware of the settlement for eight years and had continued to pay benefits to the claimant throughout, the carrier would suffer no prejudice from the approval, and the amount of the settlement was fair and reasonable:

The Court of Claims erroneously denied claimant’s request for the application for a nunc pro tunc order. “‘A judicial order may be obtained nunc pro tunc approving a previously agreed-upon settlement, even in cases where the approval is sought more than three months after the date of the settlement, provided that the petitioner can establish that (1) the amount of the settlement is reasonable, (2) the delay in applying for a judicial order of approval was not caused by the petitioner’s fault or neglect, and (3) the carrier was not prejudiced by the delay'” … . Amacio v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06298, 1st Dept 7-28-15

 

, ,

There Is No Legal or Constitutional Authority for a Pre-Execution Challenge to a Search Warrant—Facebook’s Attempt to Quash Search Warrants Seeking All the Information in 381 Subscribers’ Facebook Accounts Was Rejected

The First Department, in an extensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined there was no statutory or constitutional authority for Facebook’s motion to quash 381 search warrants which sought all the data from the targets’ Facebook accounts and prohibited disclosure of the warrants to the targets. There is no authority allowing a pre-execution challenge to a search warrant. Facebook’s argument that their motion was analogous to a motion to quash a subpoena, the denial of which can be appealed, was rejected. Facebook’s argument that the bulk warrants were akin to subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers, which can be challenged under the Federal Stored Communications Act (SCA), was rejected (after a full analysis):

We agree with Facebook that the bulk warrants at issue here are analogous to SCA section 2703(a) warrants to the extent they authorized the federal and state government to procure a warrant requiring a provider of electronic communication service to disclose electronic content in the provider’s electronic storage. However, contrary to Facebook’s allegations, 2703 subsection (d), which gives the ISP the right to object, applies only to court orders or subpoenas issued under subsections (b) or (c). The SCA specifically distinguishes these disclosure devices from warrants, which are governed by its subsection (a). While an order or subpoena obtained pursuant to (b) or (c) requires only that the government show “specific and articulable facts” that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” the information sought will be “relevant and material,” a warrant under subsection (a) requires the government to make the traditional and more stringent showing of “probable cause.” Here, a finding of probable cause was made by the reviewing judge, and thus the warrants are akin to SCA warrants, not SCA subpoenas or orders. Thus, Facebook’s argument that it has the right to contest the warrants based upon the SCA is contradicted by the express terms of the SCA. * * *

Our holding today does not mean that we do not appreciate Facebook’s concerns about the scope of the bulk warrants issued here or about the District Attorney’s alleged right to indefinitely retain the seized accounts of the uncharged Facebook users. Facebook users share more intimate personal information through their Facebook accounts than may be revealed through rummaging about one’s home. These bulk warrants demanded “all” communications in 24 broad categories from the 381 targeted accounts. Yet, of the 381 targeted Facebook user accounts only 62 were actually charged with any crime.

Judges, as guardians of our Constitution, play an indispensable role in protecting the rights and liberties of individuals entrenched in the Constitution. Charged with the indispensable responsibility of reviewing warrant applications, they protect the rights and interests of individuals by remaining mindful of the reasonableness embedded in the Fourth Amendment’s delicate balance. The procedural rules attendant to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement both reasonably protect the innocent and permit investigation of suspected criminal conduct. A judge reviewing a warrant request must always balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion. Further, this balance invokes carefully weighing the extent to which each level of intrusion in the execution of the warrant is needed. Each level of intrusion involves an implicit assertion by the government that the intrusion is “reasonable” to recover the evidence described in the warrant despite the compromise of the individual’s interests in privacy. Ultimately, to be fair and effective, the overall assessment of reasonableness requires the judge reviewing the warrant to carefully evaluate the need for each additional level of intrusion in the process of seizing evidence. 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. v New York County Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2015 NY Slip Op 06201, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

,

Where the Parties’ Intent Can Be Determined from the Four Corners of the Contract, the Interpretation of the Contract is a Purely Legal Question Which Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal and Which Can Be Finally Determined by the Appellate Court (No Need for a Trial)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract complaint. Defendants owned an improved parcel of land next to a parcel owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased a portion of defendants’ parcel and the parties entered an agreement which included a promise by the defendants that they would not object to any construction on plaintiff’s parcel, which was interpreted by the court to mean defendants agreed to provide their consent if it was necessary to the construction. Upon an examination of the facts, the court concluded plaintiff did not demonstrate he needed the defendants’ consent to anything related to the construction, and therefore the contract provision requiring defendants to consent was never triggered. The aspect of the case which is worth noting is the court’s determination that a purely legal question of contract interpretation was involved and that the purely legal question could be raised for the first time on appeal. The court explained that “where the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument, interpretation of the contract is a question of law and no trial is necessary to determine the legal effect of the contract…”:

Initially, although defendants’ arguments on appeal differ from those made in support of their motion, they may be considered by this Court because they present a pure legal issue of contract interpretation, which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised below … .

“On appeal, the standard of review is for this Court to examine the contract’s language de novo” … . “Our function is to apply the meaning intended by the parties, as derived from the language of the contract in question” … . In interpreting a contract, words should be accorded their “fair and reasonable meaning,” and “the aim is a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties to the end that there be a realization of [their] reasonable expectations” … . Moreover, “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . Although the parties offer conflicting interpretations of a contract, that does not render it ambiguous … . Moreover, “where the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument, interpretation of the contract is a question of law and no trial is necessary to determine the legal effect of the contract” … . Dreisinger v Teglasi, 2015 NY Slip Op 06197, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

,

New York City Was Unable to Demonstrate Amendments to the Adult Use Zoning Regulations Were Necessary to Reduce the Negative Effects of Such Businesses on the Surrounding Areas–Therefore the Amendments Constituted an Unjustified Restriction on Speech

In a lengthy, full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, the First Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the 2001 amendments to New York City’s adult use zoning regulations, re: adult eating and drinking establishments and adult video and book stores, constituted a violation of the First Amendment precluding enforcement of the amendments. In an attempt to change the character of the adult businesses the city had enacted a “60-40” rule requiring that 60% of each business be devoted to “non-adult” products and/or activities. The City later amended the regulations, removing the “60-40” rule, and re-writing the criteria so that a business could be deemed to focus on sexually explicit entertainment irrespective of the amount of space or inventory devoted to “adult” activities and materials. It was those amendments which were challenged. The controversy boiled down to a factual one: Is the City able to demonstrate that the adult-businesses’ response to the “60-40” rule was a “sham response” such that the character of the businesses, and the consequent negative effects on the surrounding community, had not been altered? If the City could so demonstrate, the recent amendments would constitute a justified restriction of speech, if not, the amendments result in an unjustified restriction of speech. The First Department determined the City failed to demonstrate the response to the “60-40” rule was a “sham response” and that the businesses remained unaltered in character by the rule. For The People Theaters of N.Y. Inc. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06200, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

,

In Responding to Defendant’s Criticisms of Defense Counsel’s Actions, Defense Counsel Merely Explained His Actions and Did Not Take a Position Adverse to His Client’s—Therefore the Defendant Was Not Entitled to Withdraw His Plea on the Ground that He Was Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel

In affirming defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, the First Department determined that defense counsel, in responding to allegations about his performance made by the defendant, did not take a position adverse to his client’s. Rather, counsel merely explained the reasons for his actions and did not voice any opinion about the validity of defendant’s pro se motions. Therefore the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea on that ground:

“It is well settled that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea” … . “When certain actions or inaction on the part of defense counsel is challenged on the motion, it may very well be necessary for defense counsel to address the matter when asked to by the court. When doing so, defense counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his performance with respect to the plea, but may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant. At that point, a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion.” … . * * *

Counsel’s statement that defendant might not understand that he still retained certain residual rights to appeal despite the waiver, and that his concerns might be mitigated if the court explained that to him, was not adverse to defendant’s position. It merely conveyed that if defendant was informed that his waiver did not bar an appeal of all issues, including the voluntariness of the plea, it might affect his view of the waiver. Counsel’s factual statement that the waiver was a condition of the People’s plea offer, which reduced defendant’s sentence and made him eligible for parole at an earlier date, and that he did not believe that there was a basis for a CPL 30.30 motion because all but one of the adjournments since he had taken over the case had been on consent due to plea negotiations, did not go beyond a mere explanation of his performance … . Counsel did not deny that he advised defendant to agree to the waiver or that he refused to make a CPL 30.30 motion. Nor did he refute any specific factual allegation raised by defendant with respect thereto or affirmatively state his belief that defendant had no legal basis for withdrawing his plea. People v Maxwell, 2015 NY Slip Op 06199, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

, ,

“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained

In an action stemming from the alleged breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA), the First Department explained the applicability of the “special facts doctrine” to the related fraud allegations. There was a defense verdict. The issue was raised on appeal by the plaintiffs because the trial judge refused to instruct the jury on the special facts doctrine, an error the First Department deemed harmless. The court offered a clear description of the doctrine:

… [P]laintiffs claimed that defendants had a duty to disclose certain documents concerning alleged adverse contract information. The “special facts” doctrine holds that “absent a fiduciary relationship between parties, there is nonetheless a duty to disclose when one party’s superior knowledge of essential facts renders a transaction without disclosure inherently unfair” … . As a threshold matter, the doctrine requires satisfaction of a two-prong test: that the material fact was information peculiarly within the knowledge of one party and that the information was not such that could have been discovered by the other party through the exercise of ordinary intelligence … . Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06091, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

,

Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Port Authority’s motion to vacate a judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff, Nash, was injured in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment after trial. The Port Authority did not appeal the judgment, but sought to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), based upon the results of an appeal in an unrelated “companion” case (Ruiz), which held the Port Authority immune from such suits. Supreme Court granted the motion and the First Department reversed, explaining that the Port Authority’s failure to appeal could not be “remedied” using Supreme Court’s discretionary “CPLR 5015” powers:

The Port Authority made a strategic decision not to appeal either the liability or the damages determination in Nash, but to prosecute the Ruiz case instead. The Port Authority thereafter abandoned any claim that it was not liable to Nash, and represented to the Court of Appeals that a reversal in Ruiz would not affect cases like Nash’s that had been finally determined. Having failed to seek leave to appeal from Nash’s affirmed final judgment, the Port Authority ought not to profit from its misrepresentations to the detriment of Nash, whose judgment was indisputably final.

As Professor Siegel noted in the Practice Commentaries accompanying CPLR 5513, “[t]he time in which to appeal or to move for leave to appeal if leave is necessary is one of the most rigid in all of procedure. Its passing without the proper step being taken forfeits the appeal and puts an end to the matter . . .” (David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5513:1).

While a court under CPLR 5015(a) might possess some limited jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment — for example, where the court purporting to enter judgment lacked subject matter jurisdiction — that discretion must be sparingly exercised lest final judgments be subject to never-ending attack, undermining the sanctity and finality of judgments. As Justice Graffeo noted in her partial dissent, “We generally do not reward litigants for failing to assert arguments in a timely fashion — with few exceptions, claims not promptly advanced are deemed waived or forfeited and this proposition applies to the right to seek reversal of a judgment on the ground that it is erroneous on the facts or law (i.e., the type of argument made on direct appeal) . . . Simply stated, when a party allows its appellate rights to lapse, it forfeits the right to challenge any issue it could have raised on direct appeal” (22 NY3d at 227). The Port Authority’s motion to vacate the Nash judgment was predicated on an issue that had been litigated in Nash and would have been reviewable on appeal. The Port Authority ought not to be permitted a second bite at the apple at the expense of the elderly plaintiff, who suffered traumatic brain injuries over 20 years ago, and will now never see a penny of her $5.2 million final judgment. Nash v Port Auth of NY & NJ, 2015 NY Slip Op 06095, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Fact that Defendant’s Vehicle Was Double-Parked Was Not the Cause of the Accident

Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department determined the fact that defendant’s (Pepsi’s) vehicle was double-parked did not warrant denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion. The fact that the vehicle was double-parked was merely the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, not the cause. Plaintiff’s claim that sunlight temporarily blinded him did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for his striking the rear of the Pepsi vehicle:

In this rear-end collision case, even assuming that the Pepsi vehicle, hit from behind, was illegally double-parked, that fact, standing alone “does not automatically establish that such double-parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, the record shows that the double-parked vehicle, given the road conditions at the time of the accident, namely, the favorable weather, the time of day, and the relatively minimal amount of traffic on the road at the time, “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes” … . Plaintiff’s proffered excuse for the accident, that sunlight temporary blinded the driver of the rear vehicle, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision … . Barry v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06034, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

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