You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Plaintiff, a Monitor in a Golf Program, Assumed the Risk of Injury in a Golf-Cart Accident

The First Department determined that defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk of riding in a golf cart driven by defendant. Both plaintiff and defendant were participating in a golf program. Defendant, 17-year-old Andrew Jiminez, was driving a golf cart with plaintiff as a passenger when he allegedly made a “full speed” sharp turn, throwing plaintiff out of the cart. Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department held that plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury from defendant’s operation of the golf cart. The fact that plaintiff was not performing her golf-program duties at the time of the accident was deemed irrelevant:

A plaintiff who voluntarily participates in a sporting or recreational event generally is held to have consented to those commonly-appreciated risks that are inherent in, and arise out of, participation in the sport … . “It is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . A nonparticipant may also be subject to a defense based on the doctrine of assumed risk … .

“[G]olfers …. must be held to a common appreciation of the fact that there is a risk of injury from improperly used carts on a fairway which is inherent in and aris[es] out of the nature of the sport generally and flow[s] from participation in it” … . Here, plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily rode in a golf cart operated by Jimenez, a 17 year old participant in the AGY program, on a golf course, during a golf tournament in which she was assigned to monitor a par-three hole for any player that got a hole in one. While plaintiff contends that she did not know that Jimenez was an unlicensed driver, she knew that he was a minor yet made no attempt to determine whether he had a license or whether he should be operating a golf cart.

The fact that plaintiff was not actively performing her duties of monitoring the hole at the time of her injury does not render the doctrine inapplicable. “[T]he assumption [of risk] doctrine applies to any facet of the activity inherent in it” … . The salient point is that the accident involved a sporting or recreational activity that “occurred in a designated athletic or recreational venue” … . Valverde v Great Expectations, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06561, 1st Dept 8-18-15

 

, , ,

Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined that the “additional insureds” endorsement in plaintiff-insurer’s policy did not have a “negligence trigger.” Therefore, even though it was demonstrated that the company insured under plaintiff-insurer’s policy was not negligent, the endorsement covered the “additional insureds” because there was a causal relationship between the insured’s acts and the underlying injury to a worker. The insured company, Breaking Solutions, was hired by the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to break up concrete for a subway construction project. Plaintiff-insurer, Burlington Insurance Co. insured Breaking Solutions.  The NYCTA and MTA were additional insureds under the policy. It was NYCTA’s responsibility to identify the location of electric cables and to shut off the power in the areas where Breaking Solutions was working. NYCTA failed to identify and shut off the power to a cable which was struck by Breaking Solutions’ excavation equipment resulting in an explosion. The plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action, an NYCTA employee, was injured by the explosion. The issue came down to the language of the “additional insureds” endorsement which referred only to injuries “caused” by the acts or omissions of the insured. Even though the probable intent of the drafters of the policy was to cover only “negligent” acts or omissions by the insured which “caused” the injury, the language of the endorsement could only be enforced as written. Because the worker’s injuries were “caused” by the (non-negligent) acts of the insured, the additional insureds (NYCTA and MTA) were covered under the terms of the policy:

While it is true that, because NYCTA had not warned the Breaking Solutions’ operator of the cable’s presence, Breaking Solutions’ “act[]” did not constitute negligence, this does not change the fact that the act of triggering the explosion, faultless though it was on Breaking Solutions’ part, was a cause of [the worker’s] injury. The language of the relevant endorsement, on its face, defines the additional insured coverage afforded in terms of whether the loss was “caused by” the named insured’s “acts or omissions,” without regard to whether those “acts or omissions” constituted negligence or were otherwise actionable. Burlington Ins. Co. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06481, 1st Dept 8-11-15

 

, ,

International Bank With a Branch in New York Was Required to Comply with an Information Subpoena—“Separate Entity Rule” Which Prevents New York Courts from Enforcing Restraining Notices and Turnover Orders Directed to Branches of Foreign Banks Located Outside New York, Does Not Prevent New York Courts from Directing the New York Branch of a Foreign Bank to Comply with an Information Subpoena, Even though the Information Sought Relates to Foreign Branches–The Information Sought Is Available Through Electronic Searches Made by the New York Branch of the Bank

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that defendant international bank, Mega (based in Taiwan with branches in 14 countries), was required to comply with an information subpoena issued to its New York branch. The essence of the action is the collection of a $39 million judgment. It was alleged that Mega was aiding the judgment debtor in preventing collection. Because the information requested was available to Mega through electronic searches conducted from the New York branch, and because Mega had consented to the necessary regulatory oversight in return for permission to operate in New York, Mega was directed to comply with the information subpoena:

The issue is whether the separate entity rule bars New York courts from compelling Mega’s New York branch to produce information pertaining to Mega’s foreign branches.

The separate entity rule is that “each branch of a bank is a separate entity, in no way concerned with accounts maintained by depositors in other branches or at the home office” … . The continuing validity of this arcane rule was recently upheld by the Court of Appeals … , solely with respect to restraining notices and turnover orders affecting assets located in foreign branch accounts  * * *. … [T]he rule does not bar the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Mega to compel a full response to the information subpoena.

Moreover, public policy interests and innovations in technology support such an exercise of jurisdiction. … “[B]road post-judgment discovery in aid of execution is the norm in federal and New York state courts” … , and “New York law entitles judgment creditors to discover all matters relevant to the satisfaction of a judgment” … . * * *

“The information requested by the Information Subpoena can be found via electronic searches performed in [the bank’s] New York office, and [is] within this jurisdiction” … . Matter of B&M Kingstone, LLC v Mega Intl. Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 06482, 1st Dept 8-11-15

 

Plaintiffs, Who Provided Management Services to a Club Described in the Media as “Run by the Mafia,” Did Not Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Remark Was “Of and Concerning” the Plaintiffs by “Innuendo”

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that the defamation claims were properly dismissed. The plaintiffs provided management services to a club, Cheetah’s, but did not own or run the club (plaintiffs provided food services and booked dancers). The club was raided by federal authorities and arrests were made based upon allegations of illegal “trafficking” of women who performed as exotic dancers at the club. A news report about the raid characterized the club as “run by the mafia.”  The defamation claims were deemed properly dismissed because the relevant remarks were directed to “Cheetah’s,” and were not, therefore, “of and concerning” the plaintiffs by “innuendo.” The dissenters argued plaintiffs had raised a question of fact whether the “run by the mafia” statement was “of and concerning” them.  The majority explained:

A plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving that the asserted defamatory statement “designates the plaintiff in such a way as to let those who knew him understand that he was the person meant” … . While a plaintiff may use extrinsic facts to prove that the statement is “of and concerning” him, he must show the reasonableness of concluding that the extrinsic facts were known to those to whom the statement was made … . Plaintiffs seek to state their case by innuendo. As this Court stated:

” The question which an innuendo raises, is [one] of logic. It is, simply, whether the explanation given is a legitimate conclusion from the premise stated.’ The innuendo, therefore, may not enlarge upon the meaning of words so as to convey a meaning that is not expressed” (… quoting Tracy v Newday, Inc., 5 NY2d 134, 136 [1959], affd 25 NY2d 943 [1969]).

The suggestion that the individual plaintiffs are necessarily identified as members of organized crime because they are employees of entities that provide management services to Cheetah’s — reported to be “run” by the Mafia — is simply not logical. It is based on innuendo and constitutes an attempt to enlarge the concept of managerial services to include domination and control of an organization by force, whether actual or threatened, in contravention of the rule set forth in Tracy. Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06409, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

,

The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close

The First Department, over an extensive dissent by Justice Saxe, determined that the defendants, who had entered an agreement to purchase plaintiffs’ condominium, were not justified in repudiating the agreement based upon on-going “firestopping” work in the condominium-building, and, even if the agreement had been effectively repudiated, the purported retraction of the repudiation was not “bona fide.”  Therefore, the plaintiffs-sellers were entitled to keep the purchasers’ $365,000 downpayment based upon purchasers’ failure to close. The issue on appeal came down to whether the plaintiffs-sellers breached a paragraph of the agreement which required them to clear the unit of any code violations of which the plaintiffs had been notified in writing by the condominium board of managers. The majority determined no such notice had been given to the plaintiffs-sellers. The majority further determined the defendants’ purported retraction of the repudiation was not “bona fide” because it was conditioned on proof of the completion of the firestopping work, thereby imposing a condition not contemplated by the contract:

… [D]efendants point to no provision in the contract that justifies their initial purported reason for canceling the contract, which was that it threatened the safety of themselves and their children. Nor do they claim that plaintiffs somehow prevented them from learning of the firestopping issue. To the contrary, the contract itself referred expressly to a … notice from the board of managers that discussed the status of the then ongoing firestopping project. This was sufficient to place defendants on notice of a potential issue that might have given them pause to execute an agreement in which they acknowledged they were accepting the unit as is.

Because defendants had no right to insist that the firestopping issue be resolved as a condition to closing, their “retraction” of the purported repudiation was ineffective. In order to be effective, a retraction of a contract repudiation must be bona fide … . Defendants’ acceptance of plaintiffs’ offer to schedule a closing was not bona fide, because it was conditioned on plaintiffs’ provision of documents and information establishing to defendants’ satisfaction that the firestopping had been completed. We disagree with the dissent that the letter from defendants’ counsel conditionally retracting the repudiation creates an issue of fact as to whether it was bona fide. That letter unquestionably adhered to defendants’ position, which had supported the initial repudiation, that plaintiffs had a contractual obligation to ensure proper firestopping in the apartment before delivering the deed. The clear implication of the letter was that, if plaintiffs could not establish to defendants’ complete satisfaction that the firestopping work had been performed, defendants would once again refuse to close. As stated above, this position was untenable, and clearly, contrary to the dissent’s view, sought to insert an additional material term or condition into the contract. Again, nothing in the contract required plaintiffs to perform any firestopping, and plaintiffs were entitled to view defendants’ continued insistence on proof that they had done so as an justified refusal to perform under the agreement. Beinstein v Navani, 2015 NY Slip Op 06403, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

, , ,

Apportionment of Damages Between the City and the Contractor Who Negligently Set Up Lane Closures for Its Highway Work Was Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence—New Trial for Apportionment of Damages Ordered/Two-Justice Dissenting Opinion Argued that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Vouching for His Own Credibility and Attacking the Credibility of Defense Witnesses In Summation Warranted a New Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the weight of the evidence did not support a 65%/35% apportionment of damages to the city (65%) and the contractor (35%) who set up lane closures for highway repair work. Plaintiff was severely injured in an accident which the jury found was the result of the failure to adequately warn drivers of upcoming lane closures. Because the lane closures were the responsibility of the contractor, the majority determined the 65%/35% damages apportionment was not supported the weight of the evidence and sent the matter back for a new trial on the apportionment of liability. Much of the opinion, including the entirety of the dissenting opinion, focused on the propriety of remarks made by plaintiffs’ counsel during summation (vouching for his own credibility, attacking the credibility of defense witnesses, etc.):

It is well settled that trial counsel is afforded wide latitude in presenting arguments to a jury in summation … . During summation, an attorney “remains within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment in pointing out the insufficiency and contradictory nature of a plaintiff’s proofs without depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial” … . However, an attorney may not “bolster his case . . . by repeated accusations that the witnesses for the other side are liars” …. .

Although the City failed to object to the bulk of the challenged comments during summation, the City moved for an immediate mistrial based on comments impugning defense counsel, the reference to “Wang and his gang,” and plaintiffs’ counsel’s allegedly vouching for his own credibility. We find that although some of the comments were highly inflammatory, they did not ” create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair'” … . The jury had ample reason to question the testimony of Officer Pagano, lessening the danger that they were improperly influenced by plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks. Gregware v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06408, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

, ,

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

 

,

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

 

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