You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Question of Fact Whether Landlord Entitled to Pass On Increased Real Estate Taxes (Pursuant to a Tax Escalation Clause)—Increase Cannot Be Tied to Improvements Which Solely Benefit the Landlord

The First Department determined the landlord should not have been granted summary judgment.  Plaintiff-tenant sought a declaration that it was not responsible for increased real estate taxes related to improvements to the building which benefitted only the landlord and not the tenant. The matter was sent back for a determination whether and to what extent the improvements benefitted only the landlord:

The Court of Appeals has made clear that “[i]t is not the aim of . . . a [tax escalation] clause . . . to impose upon the tenant responsibility for increases in real estate taxes resulting from improvements on the property redounding solely to the benefit of the landlord” … .

The motion court incorrectly found that this principle was limited to circumstances where the improvement involved a vertical or horizontal enlargement of the building. … The improvement at issue is a renovation solely of the residential aspects of the building. Plaintiff is a commercial tenant. Our declaration here simply states the well settled principle regarding tax escalation clauses.  Enchantments Inc. v 424 E. 9th LLC2015 NY Slip Op 05409, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

Frivolous Lawsuit Warranted Sanctions and the Award of Attorney’s Fees

The First Department determined sanctions and the award of attorney’s fees were appropriate for a frivolous lawsuit brought by an attorney who had represented himself in a related divorce proceeding.  The lawsuit sought $27,000 allegedly loaned to the defendant-wife by plaintiff. However, the $27,000 claim was made in the divorce proceedings and, although the lower court did not directly rule on the loan, the claim was effectively rejected by the court in a “catch-all” provision denying all relief not specifically addressed:

A court may, in its discretion, award to any party costs in the form of reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorneys’ fees resulting from “frivolous conduct,” which includes: (1) conduct completely without merit in law, which cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) conduct undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; and (3) the assertion of material factual statements that are false (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [c][3]). The court may also award financial sanctions on the same grounds (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]).

In determining whether conduct is frivolous, the court shall consider “the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]).

Here, the husband made a claim in the divorce action for repayment of the $27,000 “loan,” and Supreme Court rejected it. He then failed to challenge that finding on direct appeal. Any argument that Supreme Court did not actually decide the issue of the “loan” because it did not specifically address it is rejected, since the court included the “catch-all” language that any claims not discussed were denied. In any event, the husband could have sought clarification from the court if he felt that the claim related to the “loan” had escaped the court’s attention. Indeed, it would have behooved him to do so, as it is well settled that “res judicata bars a subsequent plenary action concerning an issue of marital property which could have been, but was not, raised in the prior matrimonial action” … . Again, we are required to consider “the circumstances under which the conduct took place” when reviewing a sanctions motion (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). Here, the circumstances are that the husband, an experienced divorce lawyer, ignored a long-standing principle of matrimonial jurisprudence. Thus, his decision to commence an action that he knew, or should have known, was futile from its inception, weighs heavily in favor of a finding that his conduct was intended solely to harass the wife.  Borstein v Henneberry, 2015 NY Slip Op 05390, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

,

Unambiguous Language In a Rider and an Exclusion In a Financial Institution Bond Precluded Coverage of Losses Stemming from the “Madoff” Ponzi Scheme

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and determined a rider and an exclusion of coverage in a financial institution bond applied to the “Madoff” Ponzi scheme. The losses associated with the Ponzi scheme were therefore not covered by the bond.  The rider covered loss resulting from dishonest acts of named persons (including Madoff) “solely” with respect to such persons’ duties as an “outside investment advisor.” Because the losses stemmed from Madoff’s hybrid duties as both an “outside investment advisor” and a “securities broker,” the rider did not cover the losses.  In addition, a specific exclusion from coverage included losses caused by the dishonest acts of a non-employee securities broker (i.e., Madoff). Jacobson Family Invs., Inc. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2015 NY Slip Op 05273, 1st Dept 6-18-15

 

, , ,

Question of Fact Whether Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Gave Rise to a Claim Under General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a

The First Department, recalling and vacating its decision and order dated March 3, 2015, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-firefighter’s action based upon General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a was properly denied. The action alleged the city failed to provide firefighters with personal ropes and, as a result, firefighters were forced to jump from windows without ropes (resulting in injury and death). Labor Law 27-a requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards. A question of fact was raised whether the failure to issue personal ropes resulted from the city’s discretionary decision-making, and therefore is not subject to government-function immunity:

The motion court properly declined to dismiss the portion of plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law (GML) § 205-a claims predicated on an alleged violation of Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1). The City unavailingly contends that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) cannot provide a valid predicate for any General Municipal Law § 205-a claim. However, the statute, known as the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), which imposes a general duty on an employer to provide employees with “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees” (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]), is sufficient since it is “a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Moreover, the City failed to “show that it did not negligently violate any relevant government provision or that, if it did, the violation did not directly or indirectly cause plaintiff’s injuries” … . There is evidence, including testimony and an investigative report, that the failure to issue personal ropes to the firefighters contributed to the injuries and deaths suffered when the firefighters jumped from windows using either no safety devices or a single rope that had been independently purchased by one of the firefighters. The City is also not entitled to dismissal of these claims pursuant to governmental function immunity, since the evidence concerning the removal of existing personal ropes in 2000, and the failure to provide new ropes in the period of more than four years from then until the fire giving rise to these claims, raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes “actually resulted from discretionary decision-making — i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stolowski v 234 E. 178th St. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05099, 1st Dept 6-16-15

 

, ,

The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be Raised as a Defense—Here the Charges Against a Teacher Were Time-Barred—The Department of Education (DOE) Did Not Demonstrate the Charges Were Criminal (to Which the Three-Year Statute Would Not Have Applied)

The First Department determined the third set of charges brought against petitioner-teacher, alleging the teacher improperly obtained his daughter’s admission to NYC Department of Education (DOE) schools for which she was not zoned, was time-barred.  Although the three-year statute of limitations in the Education Law would not apply had the allegations constituted a crime, the hearing officer did not find the teacher’s conduct to be criminal. The court determined that the first two set of charges against the teacher did not justify termination (the penalty imposed) and remitted the matter for a lesser punishment. The court noted that the statute of limitations in the Education Law need not be raised as a defense:

Supreme Court did not exceed its authority in finding that the third set of charges against petitioner was time-barred. Education Law § 3020-a(1) requires that disciplinary charges against a teacher be brought within three years from the date of the alleged misconduct, unless the alleged misconduct constituted a crime when committed. Petitioner was not required to raise the statutory time limitation set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) as a defense in the disciplinary proceeding. Where, as here, “a statute creates a right unknown at common law, and also establishes a time period within which the right may be asserted, the time limit is . . . a condition attached to the right as distinguished from a [s]tatute of [l]imitations which must be asserted by way of defense” … . Accordingly, DOE had the burden of establishing that it met the time requirement set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) or that the crime exception to the time requirement applied … . DOE failed to meet its burden. Matter of Suker v New York City Board/ Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 04940, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment

The First Department, over a dissent, determined questions of fact about the sequence of rear-end collisions precluded summary judgment.  DiPaoli, the driver of the front vehicle, was at a complete stop at a red light. The middle vehicle was driven by Passos, the plaintiff.  The last vehicle was an MTA bus.  From the deposition testimony, it was unclear whether the plaintiff’s vehicle struck the first vehicle before the bus struck plaintiff’s vehicle. The court explained the applicable law:

When approaching another vehicle from behind, drivers are required to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed, maintain control over the vehicle, and use reasonable care to avoid a collision, by, among other things, including maintaining a safe distance (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). Under the law applicable to rear end collisions, a presumption of negligence is established by proof that a stopped car was struck in the rear … . However, that presumption can be rebutted if the operator of the rear vehicle comes forward with an adequate non-negligent explanation for the accident … . Passos v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04916, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

Sworn Juror Who Was From the Same Neighborhood as Defendant Stated His Fear of Drug Dealers Would Prevent Him from Reaching an Impartial Verdict—the Juror Was Properly Discharged as “Grossly Unqualified” and “For Cause” Based Upon a Newly Discovered Ground

The First Department determined a sworn juror was properly discharged as “grossly unqualified,” as well as “for cause.” The juror lived in the neighborhood where the crime occurred and where defendant and his accomplices lived. The juror told the court that his fear of drug dealers in his neighborhood would prevent him from reaching an impartial verdict. The juror had not mentioned his fear before he was sworn:

The juror’s fear provided grounds for the court to dismiss him as “grossly unqualified to serve” pursuant to CPL 270.35(1), even if the court did not cite the statutory phrasing, because it was clear that the juror could not remain impartial. Additionally, since the juror had not mentioned that he feared for his safety when questioned by the court and the parties before being sworn, he was properly discharged for cause, on a newly discovered ground, pursuant to CPL 270.15(4). People v Ward, 2015 NY Slip Op 04928, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

,

Termination of Teacher’s Probationary Employment and Teaching Licenses Was “Abitrary and Capricious” Because the Ruling Was Based In Part Upon an Issue, Absenteeism, of Which the Teacher Had Not Been Given Notice

The First Department found the school district’s termination of petitioner’s probationary employment as a teacher and termination of her teaching licenses was “arbitrary and capricious” because it was based in part on an issue, absenteeism, of which the teacher had not been given notice. Matter of Brower v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 04764, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

, , ,

Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Deemed Timely (Sua Sponte, Nunc Pro Tunc)—the 90 Days Started Running When Plaintiff’s Asthma Symptoms Worsened, Not When a Doctor Connected the Symptoms to Mold in the Apartment—the Plaintiff Did Not Make a Motion for Permission to File a Late Notice of Claim

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte (in the absence of a motion by the plaintiff), deemed plaintiff’s late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc. The claim alleged mold resulting from a leak in plaintiff’s New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) apartment exacerbated plaintiff’s asthma.  The First Department found that the cause of action accrued when plaintiff’s symptoms worsened, no later than February, 2011, not when a connection between the mold and plaintiff’s symptoms was suggested by a doctor in March 2011:

[Plaintiff] was required to file a notice of claim within 90 days after “the date of [her] discovery of the injury” or the date on which “through the exercise of reasonable diligence the injury should have been discovered” (CPLR 214-c[3]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]…). NYCHA established that plaintiff’s claim accrued no later than February 2011, by relying on plaintiff’s testimony that her asthma symptoms worsened, resulting in more frequent attacks and hospital visits, starting in September or December of 2010, or January or February of 2011, when she was prescribed additional medications, as reflected in her hospital records. Thus, the notice of claim, filed over 90 days later in June 2011, without leave of court, was late and without effect … .

Plaintiff argues that her claim did not accrue until March 2011, when a doctor noted a connection between her symptoms and the mold in her apartment. However, a “cause of action for damages resulting from exposure to toxic substances accrues when the plaintiff begins to suffer the manifestations and symptoms of his or her physical condition, i.e.[,] when the injury is apparent, not when the specific cause of the injury is identified” … .

The court lacked authority to deem the late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc, since plaintiff never moved for such relief and the statutory time limitation for bringing the claim had already expired when NYCHA moved for summary judgment … . Vincent v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 04767, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

,

Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim.  A rope attached to a heavy tank being lowered down some stairs by plaintiff severed one finger and a portion of another (“grave injury”). The court found that the incident was gravity-related, plaintiff was not provided with adequate safety devices, and plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injury. The court noted that another party’s cross-motion for summary judgment should not have been denied on the ground the pleadings were not attached to the motion papers.  The pleadings had been provided to the court by other parties. Serowik v Leardon Boiler Works Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04773, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

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