You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Where the Parties’ Intent Can Be Determined from the Four Corners of the Contract, the Interpretation of the Contract is a Purely Legal Question Which Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal and Which Can Be Finally Determined by the Appellate Court (No Need for a Trial)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract complaint. Defendants owned an improved parcel of land next to a parcel owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased a portion of defendants’ parcel and the parties entered an agreement which included a promise by the defendants that they would not object to any construction on plaintiff’s parcel, which was interpreted by the court to mean defendants agreed to provide their consent if it was necessary to the construction. Upon an examination of the facts, the court concluded plaintiff did not demonstrate he needed the defendants’ consent to anything related to the construction, and therefore the contract provision requiring defendants to consent was never triggered. The aspect of the case which is worth noting is the court’s determination that a purely legal question of contract interpretation was involved and that the purely legal question could be raised for the first time on appeal. The court explained that “where the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument, interpretation of the contract is a question of law and no trial is necessary to determine the legal effect of the contract…”:

Initially, although defendants’ arguments on appeal differ from those made in support of their motion, they may be considered by this Court because they present a pure legal issue of contract interpretation, which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised below … .

“On appeal, the standard of review is for this Court to examine the contract’s language de novo” … . “Our function is to apply the meaning intended by the parties, as derived from the language of the contract in question” … . In interpreting a contract, words should be accorded their “fair and reasonable meaning,” and “the aim is a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties to the end that there be a realization of [their] reasonable expectations” … . Moreover, “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . Although the parties offer conflicting interpretations of a contract, that does not render it ambiguous … . Moreover, “where the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument, interpretation of the contract is a question of law and no trial is necessary to determine the legal effect of the contract” … . Dreisinger v Teglasi, 2015 NY Slip Op 06197, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

,

New York City Was Unable to Demonstrate Amendments to the Adult Use Zoning Regulations Were Necessary to Reduce the Negative Effects of Such Businesses on the Surrounding Areas–Therefore the Amendments Constituted an Unjustified Restriction on Speech

In a lengthy, full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, the First Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the 2001 amendments to New York City’s adult use zoning regulations, re: adult eating and drinking establishments and adult video and book stores, constituted a violation of the First Amendment precluding enforcement of the amendments. In an attempt to change the character of the adult businesses the city had enacted a “60-40” rule requiring that 60% of each business be devoted to “non-adult” products and/or activities. The City later amended the regulations, removing the “60-40” rule, and re-writing the criteria so that a business could be deemed to focus on sexually explicit entertainment irrespective of the amount of space or inventory devoted to “adult” activities and materials. It was those amendments which were challenged. The controversy boiled down to a factual one: Is the City able to demonstrate that the adult-businesses’ response to the “60-40” rule was a “sham response” such that the character of the businesses, and the consequent negative effects on the surrounding community, had not been altered? If the City could so demonstrate, the recent amendments would constitute a justified restriction of speech, if not, the amendments result in an unjustified restriction of speech. The First Department determined the City failed to demonstrate the response to the “60-40” rule was a “sham response” and that the businesses remained unaltered in character by the rule. For The People Theaters of N.Y. Inc. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06200, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

,

In Responding to Defendant’s Criticisms of Defense Counsel’s Actions, Defense Counsel Merely Explained His Actions and Did Not Take a Position Adverse to His Client’s—Therefore the Defendant Was Not Entitled to Withdraw His Plea on the Ground that He Was Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel

In affirming defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, the First Department determined that defense counsel, in responding to allegations about his performance made by the defendant, did not take a position adverse to his client’s. Rather, counsel merely explained the reasons for his actions and did not voice any opinion about the validity of defendant’s pro se motions. Therefore the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea on that ground:

“It is well settled that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea” … . “When certain actions or inaction on the part of defense counsel is challenged on the motion, it may very well be necessary for defense counsel to address the matter when asked to by the court. When doing so, defense counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his performance with respect to the plea, but may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant. At that point, a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion.” … . * * *

Counsel’s statement that defendant might not understand that he still retained certain residual rights to appeal despite the waiver, and that his concerns might be mitigated if the court explained that to him, was not adverse to defendant’s position. It merely conveyed that if defendant was informed that his waiver did not bar an appeal of all issues, including the voluntariness of the plea, it might affect his view of the waiver. Counsel’s factual statement that the waiver was a condition of the People’s plea offer, which reduced defendant’s sentence and made him eligible for parole at an earlier date, and that he did not believe that there was a basis for a CPL 30.30 motion because all but one of the adjournments since he had taken over the case had been on consent due to plea negotiations, did not go beyond a mere explanation of his performance … . Counsel did not deny that he advised defendant to agree to the waiver or that he refused to make a CPL 30.30 motion. Nor did he refute any specific factual allegation raised by defendant with respect thereto or affirmatively state his belief that defendant had no legal basis for withdrawing his plea. People v Maxwell, 2015 NY Slip Op 06199, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

, ,

“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained

In an action stemming from the alleged breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA), the First Department explained the applicability of the “special facts doctrine” to the related fraud allegations. There was a defense verdict. The issue was raised on appeal by the plaintiffs because the trial judge refused to instruct the jury on the special facts doctrine, an error the First Department deemed harmless. The court offered a clear description of the doctrine:

… [P]laintiffs claimed that defendants had a duty to disclose certain documents concerning alleged adverse contract information. The “special facts” doctrine holds that “absent a fiduciary relationship between parties, there is nonetheless a duty to disclose when one party’s superior knowledge of essential facts renders a transaction without disclosure inherently unfair” … . As a threshold matter, the doctrine requires satisfaction of a two-prong test: that the material fact was information peculiarly within the knowledge of one party and that the information was not such that could have been discovered by the other party through the exercise of ordinary intelligence … . Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06091, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

,

Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Port Authority’s motion to vacate a judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff, Nash, was injured in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment after trial. The Port Authority did not appeal the judgment, but sought to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), based upon the results of an appeal in an unrelated “companion” case (Ruiz), which held the Port Authority immune from such suits. Supreme Court granted the motion and the First Department reversed, explaining that the Port Authority’s failure to appeal could not be “remedied” using Supreme Court’s discretionary “CPLR 5015” powers:

The Port Authority made a strategic decision not to appeal either the liability or the damages determination in Nash, but to prosecute the Ruiz case instead. The Port Authority thereafter abandoned any claim that it was not liable to Nash, and represented to the Court of Appeals that a reversal in Ruiz would not affect cases like Nash’s that had been finally determined. Having failed to seek leave to appeal from Nash’s affirmed final judgment, the Port Authority ought not to profit from its misrepresentations to the detriment of Nash, whose judgment was indisputably final.

As Professor Siegel noted in the Practice Commentaries accompanying CPLR 5513, “[t]he time in which to appeal or to move for leave to appeal if leave is necessary is one of the most rigid in all of procedure. Its passing without the proper step being taken forfeits the appeal and puts an end to the matter . . .” (David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5513:1).

While a court under CPLR 5015(a) might possess some limited jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment — for example, where the court purporting to enter judgment lacked subject matter jurisdiction — that discretion must be sparingly exercised lest final judgments be subject to never-ending attack, undermining the sanctity and finality of judgments. As Justice Graffeo noted in her partial dissent, “We generally do not reward litigants for failing to assert arguments in a timely fashion — with few exceptions, claims not promptly advanced are deemed waived or forfeited and this proposition applies to the right to seek reversal of a judgment on the ground that it is erroneous on the facts or law (i.e., the type of argument made on direct appeal) . . . Simply stated, when a party allows its appellate rights to lapse, it forfeits the right to challenge any issue it could have raised on direct appeal” (22 NY3d at 227). The Port Authority’s motion to vacate the Nash judgment was predicated on an issue that had been litigated in Nash and would have been reviewable on appeal. The Port Authority ought not to be permitted a second bite at the apple at the expense of the elderly plaintiff, who suffered traumatic brain injuries over 20 years ago, and will now never see a penny of her $5.2 million final judgment. Nash v Port Auth of NY & NJ, 2015 NY Slip Op 06095, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Fact that Defendant’s Vehicle Was Double-Parked Was Not the Cause of the Accident

Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department determined the fact that defendant’s (Pepsi’s) vehicle was double-parked did not warrant denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion. The fact that the vehicle was double-parked was merely the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, not the cause. Plaintiff’s claim that sunlight temporarily blinded him did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for his striking the rear of the Pepsi vehicle:

In this rear-end collision case, even assuming that the Pepsi vehicle, hit from behind, was illegally double-parked, that fact, standing alone “does not automatically establish that such double-parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, the record shows that the double-parked vehicle, given the road conditions at the time of the accident, namely, the favorable weather, the time of day, and the relatively minimal amount of traffic on the road at the time, “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes” … . Plaintiff’s proffered excuse for the accident, that sunlight temporary blinded the driver of the rear vehicle, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision … . Barry v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06034, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

,

Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined an elevator maintenance company (The Elevator Man) did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who was injured when the elevator free-fell three stories in September 2010. The maintenance contract with the elevator maintenance company had been cancelled for non-payment, but the company had subsequently agreed to do, and had done, emergency repairs when called to do so. Although there was evidence the elevator maintenance company was negligent re: repairs done in early 2010, applying the “Espinal” criteria, the First Department held there was no evidence the maintenance company “launched an instrument of harm,” the only available theory of liability:

If the issue were limited to whether The Elevator Man was negligent, a question of fact would preclude summary judgment. However, the issue is not that simple.

“Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]).

Where a contractor has entered into a contract to render services, it may only be held to have assumed a duty of care to nonparties to the contract in three situations:

“(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal citations omitted]).

To the extent plaintiff relies on the inspection performed by The Elevator Man on January 14, 2010 in which it gave the elevator a “Satisfactory” rating, despite a “Cease Use” violation that had been issued on November 1, 2009, The Elevator Man was subject to the maintenance contract then in effect. To the extent plaintiff argues that The Elevator Man was negligent in the work it performed on May 26, 2010, any duty The Elevator Man had toward him could not be based on the terminated 2009 maintenance agreement; nevertheless, The Elevator Man continued to be subject to a more limited contract with the manager of the parking facility, in which it agreed to respond to emergency calls, upon payment of an agreed fee.

We find the rule set forth in Espinal to apply here. It is conceded that of the three possibilities listed in Espinal, only the first could provide a basis for liability to plaintiff: “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm'” (id. at 140). However, even accepting for purposes of this analysis that The Elevator Man negligently inspected the elevator on January 14, 2010 and negligently failed to correctly assess the condition of the elevator and necessary repair on May 26, 2010, it cannot be said to have launched a force or instrument of harm. That is, in failing to correctly inspect or repair the elevator, it did not create or exacerbate an unsafe condition. Medinas v MILT Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06044, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

,

Evidence Did Not Support Conviction for Attempted Possession of Burglar’s Tools— Conviction Was Against the Weight of the Evidence

The First Department determined the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction for attempted possession of burglar’s tools (the conviction was against the weight of the evidence). The defendant had tools in his possession and stopped his bicycle to look inside two or three cars (in broad daylight).  However the defendant did not touch the tools. Therefore the element of the offense which requires circumstances indicating the tools were about to be used to commit a burglary was not supported:

“A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime” (Penal Law § 110.00.) “While the statutory formulation of attempt would seem to cover a broad range of conduct—anything tend[ing] to effect’ a crime—case law requires a closer nexus between defendant’s acts and the completed crime” … . The accused must engage in conduct that comes “dangerously close” to a completed crime before it can be combined with a criminal intent to constitute an attempted crime …

“A person is guilty of attempted possession of burglar’s tools when, with the intent to possess burglar’s tools, he tries to possess any tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses involving larceny by a physical taking, and the surrounding circumstances evince an intent to use same in the offense of such character” … .

Although the element of intent may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence …, under the particular circumstances of this case the officer’s testimony that he observed defendant, in broad daylight, stopping his bicycle between two or three cars and looking through the driver’s side front window, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to use the tools to steal any items from the cars. The officer admitted, inter alia, that during the 15 seconds that he observed defendant, he never saw him touch either a tool in the pouch or any of the cars and that the screwdriver set had to be assembled to be usable … . People v Pannizzo, 2015 NY Slip Op 05894, 1st Dept 7-7-15

 

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

 

,

A Misrepresentation Which Is the Subject of a Provision in a Contract May Be the Basis for a Distinct Fraud Cause of Action Which Is Not Duplicative of the Breach of Contract Cause of Action

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that misrepresentations supported both a claim for breach of contract and a claim for fraud in the inducement. The facts of the case are laid out in the dissent and are not summarized here. The misrepresentations involved the alleged failure to disclose an audit prior to the sale of a company which, plaintiff alleged, induced plaintiff to pay more than the company was worth. The majority offered a clear explanation of the legal requirements for a distinct fraud (tort) cause of action which is not duplicative of the related breach of contract cause of action:

It is axiomatic that in order to state a claim for fraudulent inducement, “there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on it, resulting in injury” … . In the context of a contract case, the pleadings must allege misrepresentations of present fact, not merely misrepresentations of future intent to perform under the contract, in order to present a viable claim that is not duplicative of a breach of contract claim … . Moreover, these misrepresentations of present fact must be “collateral to the contract and [must have] induced the allegedly defrauded party to enter into the contract … . Therefore, “[a]s a general rule, to recover damages for tort in a contract matter, it is necessary that the plaintiff plead and prove a breach of duty distinct from, or in addition to, the breach of contract” … . * * *

… [The] representations were … warranted to be accurate at the time the contract was entered into and made for the purposes of inducing the plaintiffs to purchase those loans. They were designed to be relied on to arrive at an accurate value of the loans, and the value of the company being purchased here. These misrepresentations did not merely evince “an insincere promise of future performance [but were] instead . . . misrepresentation[s] of then present facts that were collateral to the contract, and thus plaintiff sufficiently alleged a cause of action sounding in fraud” … .Wyle Inc. v ITT Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05877, 1st Dept 7-7-15

 

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