You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION WITH THE CHILDREN’S FORMER FOSTER MOTHER; A STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER VISITATION WITH A “LEGAL STRANGER” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over an extensive and comprehensive dissent, determined Family Court properly allowed visitation with the children by their former foster mother. The dissent argued the court did not have the power to order visitation with the former foster mother, a “legal stranger:”

Commonly, visitation plans for children in foster care involve parents, grandparents or siblings, all of whom have standing to commence visitation proceedings. However, in this case, there was no visitation petition or proceeding before the court at the time of the permanency hearing. Rather,the court ordered visitation between the children and the former foster mother in order to advance the children’s “well-being” as it is required to do under Family Court Act § 1086. To accomplish that, the court gave special attention to the unique, undisputed circumstances of these children: (1) the children suffered from PTSD and other mental health issues following removal from their biological mother in 2016; (2) they each improved remarkably during the nearly six years they were cared for by the former foster mother; (3) removal from her care in December 2021 was traumatic for them; (4) at the time of the order, the children had only been in their current foster home for a few months; (5) ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] and the foster care agency had previously consented to and facilitated visits with the former foster mother for approximately two years; and (6) the children remained strongly bonded to her as the only adult who had been a consistent positive presence in their lives at the time of the 2023 permanency hearing that resulted in the order.

… [A]s Family Court explained on the record, “there is no legal path where the children end up in [the] care” of the former foster mother. However, the court expressed concern that discontinuing all contact with her at this time would be contrary to their well-being. The court noted that it was troubled “that we didn’t have more details [presented at the hearing] about the children’s therapy and medication” and that there was no testimony that “cutting off all contact with [the former foster mother] . . . is therapeutically beneficial.” Under these circumstances, Family Court’s continuation of visitation with the former foster mother was an appropriate exercise of its authority under Family Court Act § 1089, was tailored to the particular circumstances of these children, and was in keeping with the legislative goal of ensuring foster children’s well-being. Matter of AL.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 03799, First Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court properly ordered visitation with the children by their former foster mother, based primarily upon the children’s improvement while in her care and the strong bond between her and the children. The dissent argued the court did not have the authority to order visitation with a “legal stranger.”

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW, SUFFICIENTLY PLED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES; PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a comprehensive dissent, determined defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank owed a duty to plaintiff based upon its anti-fraud polices advertised on the bank’s website. Defendant David Tate opened an account at a New Jersey Chase bank in the name of his business, Alchemy. Tate did not provide any personal identification or any corporate documentation to the bank. Plaintiff, thinking she was investing in Alchemy, wired $300,000 to the Alchemy account which was appropriated by Tate:

Under New Jersey law, a bank and its depositor have an arm’s-length, debtor-creditor relationship … . Banks do not have a duty to protect depositors from the wrongful conduct of third parties with whom the bank has done business .. .

Nonetheless, a bank may have a duty of care “where a special relationship has been established from which a duty can be deemed to flow” … . A special relationship may be formed “by agreement, undertaking or contact” … . As pertinent here, an “undertaking” is “the willing assumption of an obligation by one party with respect to another or a pledge to take or refrain from taking particular action” … .

Crediting plaintiff’s factual allegations, construing the complaint liberally, and according it the benefit of every possible favorable inference …, we find that the complaint adequately pleaded that Chase assumed a duty to abide by the anti-fraud procedures that it publicized.

… [P]laintiff has adequately pleaded the existence of a special relationship with Chase, giving rise to a duty to plaintiff to enforce its anti-fraud procedures … . Plaintiff has likewise stated a claim against Chase in negligence, based on its alleged failure to abide by these safeguards when Tate opened Alchemy’s account with Chase … . Ben-Dor v Alchemy Consultant LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03797, Second Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: In New Jersey, to sue a bank for the wrongful conduct of a third party, here the use of a bank account to defraud plaintiff, the bank must owe plaintiff a special duty. The majority held the anti-fraud policies on the bank’s website may be the basis for such a special duty. There was an extensive and comprehensive dissent.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT WORK FOR; BASED ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, DAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS DENIED BY SUPREME COURT; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, OVER A DISSENT, REVERSED, FINDING DAL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over a dissenting opinion, determined defendant contractor, DAL, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff who fell from an A-frame ladder owned by DAL. Plaintiff had finished his measuring work using a ladder and scaffold which he had removed from the area. Plaintiff was then asked to confirm his measurements. He returned to the area and used an A-frame ladder that was already set up there. The ladder wobbled and he fell. It turned out the ladder was owned by DAL, with which plaintiff had no connection. There was disputed evidence the ladder was defective and DAL was alleged to have created a dangerous condition. Supreme Court found there was a question of fact supporting plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. The majority reversed, finding DAL did not owe plaintiff a duty of care:

Because DAL was not an owner, a general contractor, or a statutory agent of an owner or general contractor, the Labor Law § 200 claim against it could not stand … . * * *

… [G]iven that DAL did not enter into a contract with plaintiff or his employer, a duty of care to plaintiff cannot arise out of a contractual relationship … . Any contractual obligations DAL may have had to its employees or to JRM, the general contractor, did not extend to plaintiff … . The question that remains is whether DAL may still owe a duty of care to plaintiff. Generally, a contracting party does not owe a duty of care to a noncontracting third party … . There are three well-settled exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . * * *

… [T]he record establishes that the DAL ladder was left by a DAL employee in the fifth-floor pantry at some point in the late morning on the day of accident, and that plaintiff saw the unattended ladder when he returned to the fifth-floor pantry to review his measurements from earlier that morning. Plaintiff did not know or ascertain who owned the ladder … . … [P]laintiff did not obtain permission to use the ladder, … DAL did not supply or provide plaintiff with the ladder for use to complete his tasks, … DAL had no duty to provide plaintiff with a safe or adequate ladder, and … DAL did not supervise, direct or control plaintiff’s work. … DAL did not launch a force or instrument of harm. Thus, under Espinal, DAL did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, and plaintiff’s common-law negligence claim against it cannot stand. Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. North, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03558, First Dept 7-2-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff fell from an allegedly defective ladder belonging to a contractor he did not work for. Because none of the Espinal factors applied, the contractor did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. There was a dissenting opinion.​

 

AS PLAINTIFF WAS REMOVING DUCTS FROM THE CEILING, A PORTION OF A DUCT STRUCK PLAINTIFF AND THE A-FRAME LADDER CAUSING HIM AND THE LADDER TO FALL TO THE FLOOR; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE LADDER WAS “UNSECURED;” PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was provided with an A-frame ladder to remove duct work from the ceiling. A portion of the duct fell causing the ladder to tip and plaintiff fell to the floor. The court noted that plaintiff need not prove the ladder was defective. In addition, summary judgment is appropriate even where, as here, plaintiff is the only witness to the incident:

Labor Law § 240(1) “mandates that owners and contractors provide devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to persons performing work covered by the statute” … . As the building owner, defendant had the duty to provide proper protection to plaintiff, a worker, pursuant to section 240(1) … .

For purposes of liability under section 240(1), “[i]t is sufficient . . . that adequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping or to protect the plaintiff from falling were absent” … . Here, plaintiff’s testimony that he was not provided with any other safety protection except an unsecured ladder, which fell along with plaintiff when both were hit by the duct, established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Rivera v 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP, 2024 NY Slip Op 03562, First Dept 7-2-24

Practice Point: If plaintiff falls from an “unsecured” A-frame ladder, summary judgment on the Labor Las 240(1) cause of action is appropriate even where there is no proof the ladder was defective and there were no witnesses.

 

, ,

A DECEASED PARTY’S ADMISSIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY AS AGAINST THAT PARTY’S ESTATE AND SUPPORT THE PETITIONER-ESTATE’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT ESTATE WAS PRESENT DURING DISCUSSIONS AT THE HEART OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM AND MUST BE DISQUALIFIED UNDER THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined summary judgment dismissing the constructive trust cause of action and denying the motion to disqualify counsel because he would necessarily be a witness should not have been granted. Mother, Isabel, alleged, as Medicaid planning, she transferred $1.6 million to her daughter, Jody, to be held by Jody during Isabel’s lifetime and then distributed equally among Jody and her two siblings. Jody, however, predeceased Isabel. Upon learning the accounts set up by Jody had only $255,000 in them, Isabel asserted a claim against Jody’s estate for $2 million. Subsequently Isabel died. The lawyer who represents Jody’s executor in the instant proceedings, Leibowitz, took notes during a telephone conference among himself, Isabel and Jody when the Medicaid planning transfer was discussed. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that there was sufficient evidence that Jody had made admissions concerning the Medicaid planning agreement which is the basis for the constructive trust cause of action. Jody’s admissions are not excludable as hearsay against her estate. The First Department also concluded Leibowitz’s status as witness required his disqualification:

… [A]n admission by a party is admissible against that party, as an exception to the hearsay rule, as evidence of the matter asserted in the admission, whether or not the party’s statement was against his or her interest at the time the statement was made … . Moreover, “[a]dmissions of a testator or intestate are competent against the estate” … . Accordingly, admissions by Jody are competent evidence against Jody’s executor, the representative of her estate. * * *

… [T]he 2009 notes reflect that Leibowitz discussed with Jody and Isabel the transfers at issue in this case, and Robert [Isabel’s son and executor of her estate] may examine Leibowitz at trial about Jody’s statements to him concerning any agreements, understanding or promises between herself and Isabel relating to those transfers. While it cannot be determined at this juncture whether Leibowitz’s testimony will be of material assistance to Robert in proving his claim, it remains the case that Leibowitz discussed matters related to that claim with Jody, and his recollections of Jody’s statements will be admissible against Jody’s executor as admissions. Because Leibowitz should be a witness in this case, his continued representation of Jody’s executor in this proceeding violates the advocate-witness rule and disqualification pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is appropriate. Matter of Newman, 2024 NY Slip Op 03544, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point:  A deceased party’s admissions are not hearsay as against that party’s estate.

Practice Point: An attorney who will be called as a witness for the opposing party must be disqualified under the advocate-witness rule.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE DISFAVORED; HERE THE ISSUES IN EACH MOTION DID NOT OVERLAP AND APPELLANTS OFFERED A SUFFICIENT REASON. I.E. THE FIRST MOTION PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE ADMITTED SWERVING INTO APPELLANTS’ VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellants’ second summary judgment motion in this traffic accident case did not violate the prohibition of successive motions. The first motion dealt with whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law. The second motion addressed defendant’s liability. Appellants demonstrated a sufficient reason for the failure to include both issues in a single motion, i.e., the first motion was made before defendant was deposed and admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle:

… [A]ppellants’ first motion for summary judgment was on the issue of serious injury. Their second motion was on the issue of liability. The issue of whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law, “is a threshold matter separate from the issue of fault” and which must, therefore, be determined separately … . “[S]erious injury is quintessentially an issue of damages, not liability” … . Under the facts presented, appellants’ failure to raise the issue of liability in their first motion for summary judgment does not run afoul of the general disfavor of successive motions since the issue of serious injury was not germane to the issue of liability … .

Appellants have also established the existence of sufficient cause … . Here, the record indicates that the first motion for summary judgment was filed prior to the deposition testimony of defendant-respondent Phanor. In his testimony Phanor admitted that he swerved into appellant’s vehicle in order to avoid another unidentified vehicle. Priester v Phanor, 2024 NY Slip Op 03554, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Here the fact that successive summary judgment motions are generally prohibited was overlooked. The issues in the two motions did not overlap (one dealt with plaintiff’s damages, the other with defendant’s liability). And the first motion was brought before the deposition in which defendant admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT HAS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN A QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM (QRTP) AT EVERY PERMANENCY HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, applying an exception to the mootness doctrine (appellate relief had already been granted), determined Family Court has the decision-making authority to determine the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing:

… [W]e find that Family Court has the decision-making authority as to the appropriateness of the child’s continued placement in a QRTP at every permanency hearing (see Family Ct Act §§ 1088[b], 1089[d][2][viii]). A contrary reading goes against the express purpose of the Family First Act, which is aimed at reducing the use of institutional group placements for children in foster care by limiting the length of time that they can spend there. The Family First Act, codified in New York State through amendments to the relevant provisions in the Family Court Act and Social Services Law, explicitly seeks to “ensure[] more foster children are placed with families by limiting federal reimbursement to only congregate care placements that are demonstrated to be the most appropriate for a child’s needs, subject to ongoing judicial review ” … . Matter of Malachi B. (Tania H.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03534, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Family Court has the authority to review and decide the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MED MAL CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this medical malpractice case was entitled to dismissal of all claims because he was not properly served:

Defendant Michael B. Shannon, M.D. contends that this action should have been dismissed as against him for lack of timely service under CPLR 306-b … . It is undisputed on appeal that plaintiff failed to properly serve Shannon within 120 days of commencement of this action. Plaintiff does not purport to have demonstrated good cause for the delay. We find that an extension of time to serve Shannon was not warranted in the interest of justice.

Shannon’s unrebutted affidavit reflects that service was attempted at an office where he worked only as an independent contractor and that his residence and principal place of business were in Ohio. Plaintiff failed to make any effort to investigate further or to correct this error when Shannon failed to appear or answer. She did not file her default motion until nearly two years after commencing this action, which is well over the one-year deadline to make such a motion (see CPLR 3215[c]). The motion was also filed after discovery and motion practice were well underway. Diaz v Nasir, 2024 NY Slip Op 03536, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to serve defendant and did not make a timely motion to extend the time to serve, complaint dismissed.

 

, ,

DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND AFTER WORK ON ANOTHER PROJECT WAS NOT “INTEGRAL” TO THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS PERFORMING WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATIONS; IN ADDITION THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEBRIS; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on certain Labor Law 241(6) causes of action and the city’s motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims should not have been granted. Plaintiff tripped on discarded plastic and rock debris from prior sidewalk demolition and construction. Plaintiff was working on reconstruction of a sidewalk bridge when he fell. Therefore the plastic and rock debris did not constitute material integral to the work plaintiff was performing as Supreme Court had held. In addition, although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed because the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition created by the debris:

The plastic and the rock were not integral to the work performed by plaintiff or his coworkers because it constituted an accumulation of debris from previous work that was left in a “passageway” or “working area” which should have been kept free of debris ​… . * * *​

The “task at hand” did not involve demolition. It is uncontested that plaintiff and his coworkers were dismantling and rebuilding a sidewalk bridge at a new location and that plaintiff fell when he slipped and tripped while manually transporting a heavy beam to the new location. While it is undisputed that Padilla was a general contractor that did demolition work, the court’s overly broad view of the integral to the work defense reads [Industrial Code] sections 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2) out of existence. Lourenco v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03540, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Debris left over from another job was not “integral” to the work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s fall, therefore the presence of the debris violated certain provisions of the Industrial Code.​

Practice Point: Although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, it did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Therefore the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF STEPPED ON A SMALL WOODEN “PATCH” COVERING A HOLE IN THE FLOOR AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE HOLE; DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE WAS REJECTED; THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT NEED NOT BE FORESEEN; IT IS ENOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ELEVATION-RELATION RISK AND NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was walking on a floor which had holes in it where mechanical equipment had been removed. When plaintiff stepped on a 12-inch by 12-inch “patch” which had been placed over a hole his leg went through and he was injured. The First Department rejected defendant’s argument that the incident was not foreseeable:

Plaintiff was working in the interstitial space, approximately eight feet from the 11th floor below, and was thus exposed to the effects of gravity. … [T]he affixing of “harnesses and safety lines attached to a safe structure” are the type of safety devices envisioned by § 240(1) to prevent a worker from falling through a collapsing floor … , which plaintiff was not provided.

… “A plaintiff in a case involving the collapse of a permanent structure must establish that the collapse was ‘foreseeable,’ not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of foreseeability of plaintiff’s exposure to an elevation-related risk”… . To establish foreseeability, “[a] plaintiff need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the injuries occurred was foreseeable; it is sufficient that [plaintiff] demonstrate that the risk of some injury from defendant’s conduct was foreseeable” … . This foreseeability analysis … applies to the partial collapse of a permanent structure … . Ciaurella v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 03455, First Dept 6-25-24

Practice Point; This is the second Labor Law 240(1) case in recent weeks involving the collapse of a permanent structure (a roof in the prior case and here a floor). In both cases the Appellate Division rejected the argument the accident was not foreseeable.

 

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