You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk Applies to Informal Game of Catch on a Paved Handball Court

The First Department determined the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied where plaintiff tripped on the raised, cracked, uneven edge of a sidewalk adjacent to the paved handball court where he was playing catch with a friend:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface, including risks involving less than optimal conditions .. . “If the risks are known by or perfectly obvious to the player, he or she has consented to them and the property owner has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … .

The assessment of awareness must take place against a particular plaintiff’s skill and experience … . Here, the 26-year-old plaintiff was familiar with the risks inherent in the sport of football, such as the risk of falling while running to catch a ball. He had been to Jerome Playground South to play football or baseball at least 15 times previously and was generally aware of defects in the park. Although plaintiff alleges that he did not see the particular defect that caused him to trip before he fell, cracks in the concrete were visible to a person walking by and nothing covered or concealed the open and obvious condition. Given these circumstances, the primary assumption of risk doctrine is applicable “because plaintiff was involved in an athletic activity at a designated venue and was aware of the perfectly obvious risk of playing on the cracked court”… . Latimer v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03954 1st Dept 6-3-14

 

,

Doctor Did Not Have a Duty to Disclose an Email from a Non-Physician Representative of the Implant Manufacturer Which Indicated Plaintiff Might Not Be a Good Candidate for the Implants

The First Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment had been properly granted to the defendants in a medical malpractice action.  The court found that the doctor was not required to provide the plaintiff with an email from a non-physician representative of the implant manufacturer stating that plaintiff might not be an ideal candidate for the implant because the implants require “good tissue support:”

Plaintiff … failed to rebut defendants’ showing that she was properly informed of the surgical procedure and the alternatives, as well as the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits, by tendering expert testimony proving the insufficiency of the information … disclosed to her … .

There is no basis in the law for the dissent’s conclusion that [the doctor] had a duty to disclose to plaintiff the email from the manufacturer’s representative in response to her general query. The dissent mistakenly equates that representative’s conclusory email with a product’s written manufacturer warning or a consulting doctor’s opinion. Ramos v Weber, 2014 NY Slip Op 03943, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

Cumulative Effect of Several “Suggestive” Factors Rendered the Show-Up Identification Inadmissible

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissent, determined the show-up identification of the defendants was unduly suggestive and should have been suppressed. While none of the “suggestive” factors alone would have been sufficient to invalidate the identification, the cumulative effect of all the factors rendered the identification inadmissible. The defendants were handcuffed and standing together in a well-lit garage, surrounded by police officers.  The driver of the police car carrying the complainant, who had been assaulted an hour before by “three or four black teens,” shown the car’s headlights and “takedown” lights on the defendants. The defendants, none of whom were “teens,” and one of whom was light-skinned, were covered in soot. The complainant looked at the defendants through the police car’s mesh divider and windshield.  In addition to noting there were no “exigent circumstances” mandating the show-up procedure, the court described the factors which cumulatively rendered the show-up inadmissble at trial as follows:

Here, the three suspects were standing side by side after the complainant had described her attack by multiple attackers. Defendants were flanked by as many as eight officers and, apart from the complainant, they were the only civilians present. Defendants were visibly restrained. This was obvious, not only from the fact that their hands were behind their backs, but also from the fact that defendant Santiago, who had visible physical injuries to his face indicative of a recent scuffle, was being physically restrained by one of the officers as the complainant made her identification. Defendants were covered in soot, such that it affected their appearance, particularly as to skin color. Previously, the complainant had described her assailants’ “black” skin color as a prominent identifying feature, along with their ages. As the complainant was driven from the precinct to the location of the showup identification, she was told that she would be looking at people, and that she should tell the officers if she had seen them before. When defendants were shown to the complainant, they were illuminated by the patrol car’s headlights and takedown flood lights, even though the garage lighting itself was good.

We recognize that some of these factors, either alone or even in combination do not necessarily make a showup identification unduly suggestive. A showup identification may be acceptable, even where a defendant is handcuffed and guarded by police officers when shown to the complainant … . Nor is the fact that remarks are made to a complainant before being taken to a lineup itself a basis for a prohibited showup identification … . This is because a person of ordinary intelligence would realize that the police are showing them someone suspected of having committed a crime … . Even shining lights on a suspect is not by itself unduly suggestive … . It is the cumulative effect of what otherwise might be individually permissible that makes this particular showup identification unduly suggestive. The showup was clearly beyond the high water mark set forth by the Court of Appeals… . People v Cruz, 2015 NY Slip Op 04597, 1st Dept 6-2-15

 

,

City Was Not Required to Consider the Petitioners’ Preferred Scenario for Development—City Was Required Only to Consider the “No Action” Alternative

The First Department determined the city (NYC) took the requisite “hard look” at a development project and provided a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its approval of the project. The court noted that, although the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) requires that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) include an analysis of a “No Action” alternative (an analysis based on the assumption the project will not be constructed), the CEQR does not require the FEIS to consider the petitioners’ preferred alternative development scenario. Matter of Residents for Reasonable Dev. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04560, 1st Dept 5-28-15

 

, ,

Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone Other than the Defendant Contributed DNA to a Mixture from At Least Three Persons—Conviction Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon was against the weight of the evidence. The medical examiner testified there was a mixture of DNA from at least three persons found on the weapon and defendant “could” have been a contributor to that mixture. “In other words, the medical examiner could not rule out the reasonable possibility that another unrelated individual could match the DNA profile.”  The court explained its role in a “weight of the evidence,” as opposed to a “legal insufficiency,” analysis:

On this appeal, defendant does not ask us to reverse his convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees on the ground that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support such convictions. Instead, defendant argues that his convictions should be reversed because the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. An appellate court weighing the evidence “must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony'” … . “If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable” and if the “trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, the appellate court may set aside the verdict” … . When an appellate court performs weight of the evidence review, it sits, in effect, as a “thirteenth juror” … .

We agree with defendant that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence … . The evidence failed to connect defendant with a pistol that had been discarded during a shooting incident. People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 04401, 1st Dept 5-26-15

 

,

The Agency’s Determination Was Based Upon Its Own Precedents and Related Jurisprudence and Was Therefore “Rationally Based”—The Determination Should Not, Therefore, Be Disturbed by a Court—A Court May Not Substitute Its Own Judgment for that of the Agency

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a petition to annul an agency-determination. The underlying proceedings involved two nurses accused of submitting false time sheets. In seeking a hearing allowed by the collective bargaining agreement, the union, on behalf of the nurses, requested certain documents relevant to the allegations from the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA). HRA refused to turn over the documents, arguing that such “discovery” is not allowed in disciplinary actions (by the relevant regulations). The Board (of Collective Bargaining) ultimately ruled that some, but not all, of the requested documents (those kept in the regular course of business) should be turned over. HRA filed an Article 78 petition seeking to annul the Board’s determination. Supreme Court denied the union’s motion to dismiss the petition.  The 1st Department held the petition should have been dismissed. In reviewing an agency determination, the court looks only at whether the determination is rationally based. Here the Board’s determination was based upon its own precedents and related jurisprudence. Therefore, the determination must stand.  A court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the agency:

“In reviewing an administrative agency determination, courts must ascertain whether there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it is arbitrary and capricious” … . “A court cannot simply substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency when the agency’s determination is reasonable” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that the construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld” … . “Broad deference must therefore be accorded determinations of the Board, which … is the body charged with interpreting and implementing the [regulations] and determining the rights and duties of labor and management in New York City” … .

Given this deferential standard of review, we are compelled to hold that the petition should have been dismissed. The Board’s decision had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. To be sure, the Board engaged in a relatively expansive interpretation of the duty to furnish information embodied in [the regulations], when it determined that the duty applies in the context of these disciplinary proceedings instituted pursuant to the Agreement. But its interpretation was based on the holdings of some nine prior decisions and was not irrational … . The Board based its decision on its own precedents and related jurisprudence, and its interpretation of the [regulations], a statutory provision within its purview and expertise, was sufficiently reasonable to preclude our “substitut[ing] another interpretation” … . Matter of City of New York v New York State Nurses Assn., 2015 NY Slip Op 04437, 1st Dept 5-26-15

 

 

Sale of Notes Was Champertous—Seller Subcontracted Out Its Litigation for Political Reasons In Violation of Judiciary Law 489 (1)

The First Department determined plaintiff’s purchase of notes was champertous. Champerty “is the purchase of claims with the intent and for the purpose of bringing an action that [the purchaser] may involve parties in costs and annoyance, where such claims would not be prosecuted if not stirred up . . . in [an] effort to secure costs”. Champerty is prohibited by Judiciary Law 489 (1). Although purchases of claims for more than $500,000 are not subject to the champerty prohibition (Judiciary Law 489 (2)), the First Department held that the $500,000 must actually be paid.  Here the price was set at $1,000,000 but nothing had been paid. The court determined the seller of the notes had subcontracted out its litigation to plaintiff for political purposes:

The purported sale of the notes is champertous since [the seller] maintained significant rights in the notes and expected the lion’s share of any recovery from defendants … . There is every indication that plaintiff entered into the Purchase Agreement with the intent of pursuing litigation on [the seller’s] behalf in exchange for a fee; plaintiff’s intent was not to enforce the notes on its own behalf …. Indeed, plaintiff could not enforce all of the rights under the notes, since, as the motion court noted, “No reasonable finder of fact could conclude that [plaintiff] was making a bona fide purchase of securities.” On the contrary, “[t]he only reasonable way to understand the [Purchase Agreement] is that [the seller] was subcontracting out its litigation to [plaintiff] for political reasons.” Accordingly, the sale of the notes violated Judiciary Law § 489(1). Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, 2015 NY Slip Op 04381, 1st Dept 5-21-15

 

, ,

The Insurer Properly Reserved Its Rights to Disclaim Coverage When It Agreed to Defend a Legal Malpractice Action

The insurer agreed to defend an attorney in a legal malpractice action, but reserved its rights to disclaim coverage based upon the exclusion in the policy for actions arising from the conduct of a business owned by the attorney (as opposed to the law practice). The First Department rejected the argument that the insurer’s reservation of rights violated the policy:

The issuance of a reservation of rights allows the insurer the flexibility of fulfilling its obligation to provide its insured with a defense, while continuing to investigate the claim further. In fact, an insurance company’s failure to reserve the right to disclaim coverage may later result in the insurer being equitably estopped from doing so … . Thus, although plaintiffs are correct that the counterclaims, broadly construed, triggered defendants’ duty to provide them with a defense, defendants did not breach that duty by agreeing to do so, but with a reservation of rights to, among other things, later recoup their defense costs upon a determination of non-coverage … . Law Offs. of Zachary R. Greenhill P.C. v Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04382, 1st Dept 5-21-15

 

,

Supreme Court Used the Wrong Standards When It Denied Petitioner’s Request for Documents Relating to Complaints Alleging the Improper Use of School Property by an Employee of the Department of Education (the Employee Gave a Speech on School Property Which May Have Violated the Chancellor’s Regulations re: the Use of School Property for Political Purposes)—Correct Analytical Criteria Explained and Applied

The First Department determined Supreme Court used the wrong criteria when it denied petitioner’s request for documents relating to the investigation of complaints about the use of school buildings for political purposes.  The complaints concerned a speech given by an employee of the Department of Education (DOE) which criticized the positions on education policy taken by unnamed mayoral candidates.  The speech was put up on the DOE website. Petitioner alleged the speech violated specified Chancellor’s Regulations re: the conduct of school employees with respect political campaigns and elections.  Supreme Court erroneously held that petitioner must show that the denial of the request for documents was “arbitrary and capricious,” “an abuse of discretion,” “irrational,” or “unlawful.”  The proper analysis is whether the determination “was affected by an error of law” and  places the burden on the respondent to show the request falls within one of the statutory exceptions to disclosure.  The First Department reversed Supreme Court, applied the correct analytical criteria and found that any relevant privacy interests did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure:

The appropriate standard of review is whether the determination “was affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3]…). Moreover, the burden is on respondents to establish “that the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of the[] statutory exemptions” from disclosure … . Under the circumstances of this case, the application of an improper legal standard is reversible error since it resulted in substantial prejudice to petitioner … .

Respondents failed to establish that disclosure of the materials at issue would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of [§ 89(2)]” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]). They do not claim that any personal privacy category enumerated in § 89(2) is applicable. Therefore, we must determine whether any invasion of personal privacy would be unwarranted “by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … . The speech at issue excoriated unspecified candidates in the 2013 mayoral election who had taken certain positions on education policy. Notwithstanding that the speech did not name any individual candidate or political party, the complaints to [the school district]  raised serious questions about the propriety of the speech and its publication on DOE’s website. We find that there is a “significant public interest” in the requested materials, which may shed light on whether this matter was adequately investigated … . Respondents failed to establish that the claimed privacy interests outweigh this public interest … . They assert that the materials contain personally identifying information such as home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. However, that information can be redacted and does not provide a basis for withholding entire documents … . . Matter of Thomas v Condon, 2015 NY Slip Op 04237, 1st Dept 5-19-15

 

,

Disagreement About the Meaning of a Term in the Shared-Fee-Agreement Did Not Render the Contract Ambiguous—No Need for Interpretation of the Term by the Court

The First Department, in an extensive decision, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the shared-fee arrangements among attorneys were unambiguous and must be enforced as written, without reference to extrinsic evidence. The underlying personal injury case eventually settled for $8 million.  Along the way, plaintiff’s attorney, Menkes, entered into agreements with two attorneys for assistance with the case. Most of the decision addresses the agreement with an attorney, Golomb, concerning mediation and settlement negotiations. If the mediation resulted in a settlement, Golomb was entitled to 12% of the attorney’s fees.  If further work, beyond the mediation, were required, Golomb was entitled to 40% of the attorney’s fees. Menkes argued that, although the mediation session did not result in a settlement, the mediation was a “process” which continued beyond the initial session culminating in a settlement. The majority held that the term “mediation,” pursuant to the language of the contract, encompassed only the one session.  Once that session ended without a settlement, the 40% shared-fee-arrangement kicked in:

The issue before us is one of simple contract interpretation. Under well established precedent, agreements are to be generally construed in accord with the parties’ intent … . The best evidence of the parties’ intent is “what they say in their writing” … . “[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” … . This rule is particularly applicable where the parties are sophisticated and are negotiating at arm’s length … . Language in a written agreement is deemed to be clear and unambiguous where it is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning or interpretation … . Finally, “[e]xtrinsic evidence may not be introduced to create an ambiguity in an otherwise clear document” … .

Here, as the dissent agrees, the language of the contract is unambiguous. Menkes argues that she interpreted the term “mediation” to constitute an ongoing process that would not be limited to a single session but rather would continue until an impasse or other termination had occurred. However, the assertion by a party to a contract that its terms mean something to him or her “where it is otherwise clear, unequivocal and understandable when read in connection with the whole contract” is not sufficient to make a contract ambiguous so as to require a court to divine its meaning … . The specific fee language that Menkes now claims supports her position was added to the agreement at her request. She takes the untenable position that she was never advised that the mediation reached an impasse or had been terminated. Yet despite the fact that the agreement went through several revisions, neither party saw fit to add any language to that effect. Both parties to the agreement are attorneys and thus know the importance of precision in the words used … . These clear terms, under these circumstances, need no interpretation by the court. Marin v Constitution Realty, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04225, 1st Dept 5-19-15

 

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