You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Home Justified by Exigent Circumstances—Juror’s Temporary Absence from the Trial (During Which the Trial Was Adjourned) and the Juror’s Inaccurate Statement He Had Discussed His Absence with the Judge Did Not Warrant a “Buford” Hearing or Disqualification

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Degrasse, affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding that the warrantless entry into defendant’s home to arrest him was justified by exigent circumstances and did not, therefore, constitute a “Payton” violation. The First Department further found that a juror’s temporary absence from the trial (during which the trial was adjourned), and the juror’s inaccurate statement he had discussed his absence with the judge, did not reveal juror bias and did not therefore warrant a “Buford” hearing or disqualification of the juror:

…[T]he motion court resolved the Payton issue, finding the detectives’ entry into defendant’s home justified by exigent circumstances.

Factors to be considered in determining whether exigent circumstances are present include “(1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause … to believe that the suspect committed the crime; (4) strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered; (5) a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry” … .

This list of factors is illustrative and not exhaustive … . The court’s finding of exigent circumstances is supported by evidence in the record that defendant had been identified by name and from a photograph as the assailant who shot the two men at the bar only hours before. Accordingly, there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Moreover, the Nissan Armada was traced to defendant’s nearby address where there was reason to believe he could be found. There was reason to believe defendant was armed inasmuch as he was said to have left the bar with his weapon. The record also supports the court’s conclusion that the circumstances of the Police Department’s entry into the apartment were peaceful. * * *

Defendant next argues that the court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry pursuant to People v Buford (69 NY2d 290 [1987]) with respect to a juror’s absence on a trial day. On February 7, 2012, during the third week of trial, juror number nine failed to appear at court and could not be reached by court personnel. With the consent of counsel, the court adjourned the trial for two days in order to enable a court officer to check on the juror at his home. On the adjourned date, the court officer reported that she met with juror number nine who told her that he wasn’t feeling well and that he had told Justice Webber that he would return to court on February 9, 2012. It was undisputed that no such conversation between the court and the juror occurred. The court decided to continue with the trial and address the juror’s conduct at its conclusion. Defense counsel stated that he was concerned about the juror’s fitness to continue with the trial. The court declined to conduct the requested inquiry and the trial continued to verdict. Defendant argues that the court erred in denying his request for a Buford inquiry. We disagree.

To the extent applicable, CPL 270.35(1) provides that a court must discharge a sworn juror where “the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature, but not warranting the declaration of a mistrial . . .” Defendant does not argue on appeal that the juror was grossly unqualified or that his apparent misconduct was substantial. Defendant’s only claim of error stems from the court’s refusal to conduct a Buford inquiry. Viewed in light of the request made before the trial court, defendant’s argument is based on a misconstruction of Buford. As stated by the Court of Appeals, the purpose of Buford was the creation of “a framework by which trial courts could evaluate sworn jurors who, for some reason during the trial, may possess[] a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict'” … . A juror with such a state of mind would be “grossly unqualified” … . * * *

… [I]t cannot be seriously argued in this case that juror number nine’s temporary absence from the trial and his inaccurate statement to the court officer indicated bias one way or the other. People v Paulino, 2015 NY Slip Op 05898, 1st Dept 7-7-15

 

,

Under the Public Trust Doctrine, Only the Uses of the Dedicated Parkland Which Were Contemplated by the Relevant Provisions of the NYC Administrative Code Are Allowed—The Code Provisions Authorized Construction of Facilities Directly Related to Shea Stadium (Now Demolished)—Under Standard Rules of Statutory Construction, the Meaning of the Code Provisions Cannot Be Stretched to Allow the Construction of a Shopping Mall

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined that provisions of the NYC Administrative Code could not be interpreted to allow the construction of a shopping mall in the area where Shea Stadium once stood. Rather the code provisions allowed only construction which was relevant to the stadium. Under the public trust doctrine only the uses of the dedicated parkland contemplated by the code provisions were authorized

This dispute turns on whether the plain language of Administrative Code § 18-118 compels a narrow use of the parkland in question such that any additional construction on it must be directly related to a stadium, or whether any such construction on the parkland must only be related to one of the purposes delineated in § 18-118(b). The proper interpretation of the statute is critical in this case, because, under the public trust doctrine, dedicated park areas in New York are impressed with a public trust for the benefit of the people of the State, and their “use for other than park purposes, either for a period of years or permanently, requires the direct and specific approval of the State Legislature, plainly conferred” … . Stated differently, parkland may be alienated or leased for non-park purposes as long as authorized by the legislature …, and the “legislative authority required to enable a municipality to sell its public parks must be plain” … . * * *

… [T]he public trust doctrine is clear that any alienation of parkland must be explicitly authorized by the legislature. No reasonable reading of Administrative Code section 18-118 allows for the conclusion that the legislature in 1961 contemplated, much less gave permission for, a shopping mall, unrelated to the anticipated stadium, to be constructed in the Park. Further, it is simply not in our power to set the doctrine aside, no matter how worthy a proposed use of parkland may be. Here, while there is a legislative mandate for the use of the Park, that mandate does not encompass the use proposed by respondents. Matter of Avella v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05790, 1st Dept 7-2-15

 

The Fact that Plaintiff’s Testimony Was the Only Evidence of the Defect Which Caused Her to Fall (a Hole in a Worn Rubber Mat) Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Plaintiff’s Verdict

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion the defendant hospital had constructive notice of a worn rubber mat. The jury could reason that the wearing of the mat, resulting in a hole, occurred over a period of time and should have been noticed by the defendant. The fact that plaintiff’s testimony was the only evidence of the claimed defect did not render the evidence insufficient. The motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence:

Plaintiff testified that as she entered the playground with her five-year-old grandson, her foot became caught in a hole in the rubber mat, and she fell forward, her right elbow striking the ground. Plaintiff described the hole as being caused by “worn out” rubber. * * *

To set aside a jury verdict as unsupported by sufficient evidence, the movant must demonstrate that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . The standard for setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence is “whether the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [movant] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … .

The liability verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence of defendant’s constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its premises and was not against the weight of the evidence … .

Plaintiff’s testimony that she was caused to fall when her foot became ensnared in a “worn out” section of the rubber mat was sufficient to support a finding of liability … . The fact that plaintiff’s testimony provided the lone evidence of the claimed defect is not a basis to conclude that there was insufficient evidence of a hazardous defect to impose liability on the premises owner … .

The dissent’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that the worn out area was visible or apparent by reasonable inspection cannot withstand scrutiny. A “worn out” section by definition occurs over the passage of time. As the trial court noted “the very description of a worn out area pre-supposes a slow process, and can support a jury inference [*3]that the defect should have been discovered.” The jury having reasonably credited plaintiff’s direct observations and testimony over that of the defense witnesses, it is not for us to second-guess the verdict. Cruz v Bronx Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 05601, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

,

Stipulation of Forfeiture of a Sum of Money Was Part of the Judgment of Conviction and Therefore Was Reviewable on Appeal from the Judgment of Conviction

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a stipulation of forfeiture of a sum of money entered by the defendant was part of the judgment of conviction, and was therefore reviewable on appeal. The dissent argued that appeal should have been dismissed because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction and was therefore not reviewable.  The forfeiture was ultimately affirmed on the merits:

At the outset, we reject the People’s contention, adopted by the dissent, that this appeal is not properly before us because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction. Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.30, a court has the authority to order a forfeiture of property, and any order exercising that authority “may be included as part of the judgment of conviction.” In People v Detres-Perez (127 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2015]), relying on Penal Law § 60.30, this Court recently found that a forfeiture agreement was part of the judgment of conviction and thus reviewable on the appeal from the judgment. Likewise here, the court’s so-ordering of the stipulation at the time of sentencing rendered it part of the judgment of conviction and reviewable on this appeal as of right (see CPL 450.10). Contrary to the dissent’s position, we do not conclude that Penal Law § 60.30 authorizes the inclusion of forfeiture as part of a defendant’s sentence. Rather, that provision allows a court to order forfeiture as a separate component of the judgment of conviction… . … Finally, the omission of the forfeiture order from the sentence and commitment sheet does not render the order unreviewable since a forfeiture, although not a component of a criminal sentence, can nevertheless be part of the judgment of conviction … . People v Burgos, 2015 NY Slip Op 05600, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

,

Failure to Make Clear in the Jury Instructions that the Acquittal on the Top Count Based Upon the Justification Defense Required Acquittal on the Lesser Counts As Well Rendered the Verdict “Ambiguous”—New Trial Ordered in the Interest of Justice

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, exercising the court’s “interest of justice” jurisdiction, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury instructions did not make clear that, if the jury found the defendant’s actions justified (self-defense), acquittal on all counts was mandatory. The defendant was charged with attempted murder, attempted assault in the first degree, and assault second degree stemming from a stabbing. There was evidence defendant may have acted in self-defense.  Therefore the jury was given the justification-defense instruction. The jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser two counts. If the not guilty verdict was based on the justification defense, then the defendant should have been acquitted of all charges. The jury instructions did not make the effect of finding the defendant’s acts justified clear. Because it could not be discerned whether the jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder based on the justification defense, the verdict was ambiguous and a new trial was required, notwithstanding that the error in the jury instructions was not preserved:

On this record, review of the issue in the interest of justice is warranted because it is impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the two lesser counts. While lack of justification was included as an element of each crime, the verdict sheet and the court’s accompanying explanation created confusion, because they indicated among other things that the jurors “must consider” count three irrespective of their disposition of higher counts and they failed to explicitly convey that a finding of justification on the top count precluded further deliberation. While the trial court did follow the CJI justification instruction in its charge, it also included as an element of each offense “[t]hat the defendant was not justified,” which may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each crime required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification. People v Velez, 2015 NY Slip Op 05619, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

Subcontractor Who Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Acts or Omissions of Its Subcontractors Under Labor Law 200 May Be Vicariously Liable for those Acts or Omissions Under Labor Law 241 (6)

The First Department explained that, under Labor Law 200 (a codification of common law negligence), a subcontractor, as the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor. Neither the owner, general contractor nor their statutory agent may be held liable under Labor Law 200 in the absence of evidence the owner, general contractor or their statutory agent actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here there was no evidence the defendant subcontractor created or was aware of a dangerous condition allegedly created by its subcontractors. A subcontractor who did not create and/or has no notice of the dangerous condition, however, can be vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors, as a statutory agent, under Labor Law 241 (6):

 As a subcontractor and, therefore, the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, [defendant] stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor, neither of which may be held liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200 (a codification of common-law negligence) for injuries arising from a dangerous condition in the absence of evidence that such party actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . Uncontroverted evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that [defendant]  sub-subcontracted all of its work … and furnished no workers in its own employ to perform work. Rather, [defendant’s] presence at the site was limited to one-hour visits by its president once a week or every other week. Since there is no evidence that [defendant] itself created the condition in question or had actual or constructive of it, it cannot be held liable for injuries arising from that condition under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, neither of which makes an owner, a general contractor or their statutory agent vicariously liable for the negligence of a downstream subcontractor … .

However, given that [defendant’s] subcontract with [the owner] delegated to it the authority to supervise all drywall work, and given plaintiff’s allegation that the presence of the pipe segment on the floor was caused by employees of [defendant’s] spackling sub-subcontractor … , [defendant] is subject to liability under Labor Law § 241(6) as a statutory agent … . DeMaria v RBNB 20 Owner, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05599, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

,

Defendant’s Waiver of 12-Person Jury Upheld

The First Department determined defendant had validly waived his right to be tried in front of a 12-person jury. During defendant’s trial, after the court had been closed for several days due to Hurricane Sandy, one of the jurors informed the court he was leaving town. The defendant, against the advice of his lawyer, was insistent that he wanted the trial to continue with 11 jurors:

The court noted on the record that the excused juror had informed the court that he had a flight scheduled for that day, and that the court had called the juror that morning but could not reach him. Defense counsel objected to the court’s discharge of the juror without first consulting with counsel. Counsel informed the court that, against her advice, defendant wanted deliberations to continue with the remaining 11 jurors. Defense counsel stated that she had told defendant “a number of times that I do not think we should go forward with 11,” but defendant was “extremely insistent,” was “tired of this process,” and did “not want to retry the case.” The court confirmed with defendant on the record that he wanted to continue with 11 jurors, and defendant executed a written waiver of a 12-person jury. Defense counsel also signed the written waiver.

Although the court should have given defense counsel an opportunity to be heard before it excused the juror (see CPL 270.35[2][b]), defendant entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a 12-person jury … . Defense counsel stated that she had discussed with defendant the possibility of a retrial, and that defendant rejected that option … . The court questioned defendant on the record and confirmed that he had discussed his decision with counsel, and that he understood but rejected counsel’s advice. As defense counsel stated, defendant was insistent that deliberations continue with an 11-person jury. Defendant “must accept the decision he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made” … . People v Perry, 2015 NY Slip Op 05394, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

Liquor Authority Properly Complied with the Requirements for Issuing a Liquor License When Three or More Licensed Premises Are Located Within 500 Feet

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined a petition to annul the NYS Liquor Authority’s conditional approval of a liquor license was properly denied.  The Liquor Authority properly considered the factors associated with the “500-foot-rule” requiring good cause for the issuance of a license when there are three or more licensed premises within 500 feet:

Ordinarily, applications for licenses to sell liquor for consumption on premises “shall be issued to all applicants except for good cause shown” (ABCL § 64[1]); however, no such license shall be granted for any premises within 500 feet of three or more existing licensed and operating premises, unless the Authority “determines that granting such license would be in the public interest” (ABCL § 64[7][b], [f]). In determining whether the granting of a license will promote the public interest, the Authority may consider:

“(a) The number, classes and character of licenses in proximity to the location and in the particular municipality or subdivision thereof.

“(b) Evidence that all necessary licenses and permits have been obtained from the state and all other governing bodies.

“(c) Effect of the grant of the license on vehicular traffic and parking in proximity to the location.

“(d) The existing noise level at the location and any increase in noise level that would be generated by the proposed premises.

“(e) The history of liquor violations and reported criminal activity at the proposed premises.

“(f) Any other factors specified by law or regulation that are relevant to determine the public convenience and advantage and public interest of the community” (ABCL § 64[6-a]).

These factors are intended to guide the Authority “in assuring that appropriate factors are taken into consideration which relate to the business and the impact it has . . . [and] to assure that quality of life impacts are fully incorporated into the responsible state decision-making apparatus” … .

In cases implicating this 500-foot rule, “[b]efore it may issue any such license, the [A]uthority shall conduct a hearing, upon notice to the applicant and the municipality or community board, and shall state and file in its office its reasons therefor” (ABCL § 64[7][f]).

“A reviewing court is not entitled to interfere in the exercise of discretion by an administrative agency unless there is no rational basis for the exercise, or the action complained of is arbitrary and capricious” … . Courts look to whether the determination “is without sound basis in reason and is generally without regard to the facts” … .

Regarding the substance of the reasons stated by the Authority, this Court has held that something more than a “perfunctory recitation” is needed to comply with the requirement that the Authority state its reasons for concluding that issuance of a license would be in the public interest … .

Here, the Authority’s written statement sets forth detailed, concrete reasons for its determination, made after a hearing, that issuance of a liquor license … would be in the public interest (ABCL § 64[7][b], [f]). Matter of BarFreeBedford v New York State Liq. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 05428, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

,

Criteria for Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor and for Negligent Hiring of an Independent Contractor Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

Plaintiff, who was working for the roofing contractor on a building damaged by fire, was asked by a salvager to help move a refrigerator. Plaintiff agreed and was injured while moving the refrigerator down some stairs.  The salvager was allowed to go through the building and pick out the items the salvager wanted (which included the refrigerator). Plaintiff sued the building owner (E & M). In finding the plaintiff did not have a cause of action against E & M, the First Department explained the relevant law with respect to liability for the acts of an independent contractor (the salvager) and negligent hiring of an independent contractor:

E & M established that even if it hired the salvager as an independent contractor, there is no basis to impose liability on it. “As a general rule, a principal is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor because, unlike the master-servant relationship, principals cannot control the manner in which independent contractors perform their work” … . Although “liability will attach where the employer is negligent in selecting, instructing or supervising the contractor, where the contractor is employed to do work that is inherently dangerous or where the employer bears a specific nondelegable duty'” …, these exceptions are inapplicable… . * * *

Plaintiff’s contention that issues of fact exist as to whether E & M or its principal were negligent in selecting the salvager, i.e. whether they failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining whether he was qualified to move a refrigerator down a flight of stairs, is also unavailing. “[A]n employer has the right to rely on the supposed qualifications and good character of the contractor, and is not bound to anticipate misconduct on the contractor’s part….” … . Thus, an employer “is not liable on the ground of his having employed an incompetent or otherwise unsuitable contractor unless it also appears that the employer either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care might have ascertained, that the contractor was not properly qualified to undertake the work” … . “Cases finding employers liable for negligent hiring have done so only in very specific circumstances” … not present here. There is no competent proof that E & M knew or should have known of any propensity on the part of the salvager or his helper to engage in the conduct that allegedly caused the accident … . Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown that E & M had any reason to question the qualifications of the salvager, who E & M knew had been used by its plumber on a prior occasion, to move a refrigerator … . Moreover, there was no reason for E & M to suspect that the salvager would enlist an employee of the roofing contractor to assist him. Nelson v E&M 2710 Clarendon LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05391, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

, ,

Notice of Claim Timely Served by an Unauthorized Method Deemed Valid/Motion to Renew Based Upon Information Known at the Time of the Original Motion Properly Heard in Exercise of Discretion

The First Department determined the savings provision of General Municipal Law 50-e applied and a notice of claim which was timely served by an unauthorized method was valid.  The court noted that a motion court can exercise its discretion to hear a motion to renew which relies on information known but not raised at the time the original motion was made:

Although the motion was based on information that was available to plaintiff earlier, “courts have discretion to consider such evidence in the interest of justice” … .

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s notice of claim was not served within the 90-day period set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e, and plaintiff had not timely moved for an extension of time to serve. Plaintiff contended that she qualified under either or both prongs of the “savings provision” under General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c), which provides that “[i]f the notice is served within the period specified by this section, but in a manner not in compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, the service shall be valid if the public corporation against which the claim is made demands that the claimant. . .be examined in regard to it, or if the notice is actually received by a proper person within the time specified by this section, and the public corporation fails to return the notice, specifying the defect in the manner of service, within thirty days after the notice is received.”

Moreover, “[t]he purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipal defendant to make a prompt investigation of the facts and preserve the relevant evidence. The applicable statute should be applies flexibly so as to balance two countervailing interests: on the hand, protecting municipal defendants from stale or frivolous claims, and on the other hand, ensuring that a meritorious case is not dismissed for a ministerial error. General Municipal Law § 50-e was not meant as a sword to cut down honest claims, but merely as a shield to protect municipalities against spurious ones” … .

Here, the record shows that plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant on December 8, 2011 via regular mail, which did not comply with the requirement that service be completed in person or via registered or certified mail. However, defendant subsequently demanded that plaintiff appear for examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h with regard to her claim. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s service of the notice of claim is valid under the first prong of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c). Person v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 05417, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

 

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