You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Records of Pedigree Information Which Was Linked to the Defendant and Was Supplied by the Person Who Purchased a Prepaid Cell Phone Properly Admitted as Circumstantial Evidence Defendant Purchased the Phone

The First Department determined “[a]uthenticated records showing that the person who purchased a particular prepaid cell phone, which was linked to the crime, supplied pedigree information linked to defendant were properly admitted as circumstantial evidence of defendant’s identity as the purchaser of the phone. In the context of the case, the pedigree information did not constitute assertions of fact, but circumstantial evidence that the declarant was, in all likelihood, defendant … . Rather than being factual, the pedigree information was analogous to a fingerprint left on a document, tending to show the true identity of its author … . Although the purchaser of the phone was not under a business duty to provide the pedigree information, that requirement of the business records exception to the hearsay rule did not apply, because the initial declaration was independently admissible … . The possibility that the phone could have been purchased by an unknown person who had somehow acquired defendant’s pedigree information goes to weight, not admissibility.” People v Patterson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03788, 1st Dept 5-5-15

 

,

The Fact that One of Four Men Approached for a Level One Street Inquiry Ran Did Not Provide the Police with Reasonable Suspicion that Defendant, Who Obeyed the Police Commands, Was Involved in a Crime

The First Department determined that the police did not have sufficient cause to detain four men, including the defendant, on the street. The fact that one of the four men subsequently ran did not provide any additional justification for detaining defendant. The police had enough information about a near-by robbery only to justify a “level one” street inquiry of the four men, not detention.  While detained without sufficient cause, defendant was asked by the police to lift up his shirt, revealing a gun.  Absent “reasonable suspicion” of involvement in a crime, the defendant should not have been detained to await the show-up. Absent an indication defendant posed a danger to the police officers, the defendant should not have been asked to lift his shirt:

…[T]he group of men was in a location to which a group of robbers had been reported to have fled only minutes earlier, giving the officers an articulable reason for inquiring into why the men were in the area … . The question, then, is whether the encounter ever escalated to a point that the police would have been justified in holding the men at the scene while the complainant was transported to it.

…[R]easonable suspicion is a necessary predicate to a detention for a showup identification … . Further, a person’s flight is sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to escalate a level one or level two encounter to a level three detention, so long as other circumstances are attendant, such as a high-crime location and activity suggesting, although not alone creating, reasonable suspicion that the person fleeing the scene may be engaged in criminal conduct … . In all of the cases which discuss flight as the determining factor in creating reasonable suspicion, however, the defendant is the person who fled. Here, of course, defendant did not flee; he obeyed the officers’ direction to stop and to submit to their questioning. People v Thompson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03605 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

, ,

Exclusion from Coverage of Claims Brought By or On Behalf of a Governmental Entity Applied to a Qui Tam Case Brought by a Private Party Pursuant to the Federal and State False Claims Acts Re: Medicare and Medicaid Over-Billing—the Private Party (“Relator”) Is Bringing the Action On Behalf of the Government, Which Is the Real Party In Interest

The First Department determined that the insurer’s motion for a declaration it was not obligated to pay for defendant’s defense in a lawsuit under the Federal False Claim Act alleging excessive Medicare and Medicaid billing.  As allowed under the Act, the suit was brought by a private party, called a “relator.”  The policy excluded coverage for any and claim “Brought by or on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, or any federal, state, local or foreign governmental entity, in such entity’s regulatory or official capacity.”  Supreme Court determined the exclusion did not apply because the suit was brought by a private party.  However, pursuant to the terms of the False Claim Act, the action brought on behalf of the government by the relator and the government is the real party in interest:

An action brought under the False Claims Act may be commenced in one of two ways. First, the federal government itself may bring a civil action against a defendant (31 USC § 3730[a]). Second, as is the case here, a private person, or “relator” may bring a qui tam action “for the person and for the United States Government,” against the defendant, “in the name of the Government” (id. at [b][1]). Under such circumstances, the government may elect to intervene, and if it recovers a judgment, the relator receives a percentage of the award (id. at [d][1]). If the government declines to intervene, as in the case here, the relator may pursue the action and may receive as much as 30 percent of any judgment rendered (see id. at [d][2]).

While relators indisputably have a stake in the outcome of False Claims Act qui tam cases that they initiate, “the Government remains the real party in interest in any such action” … . As the Second Circuit has explained:

“All of the acts that make a person liable under [the False Claims Act] focus on the use of fraud to secure payment from the government. It is the government that has been injured by the presentation of such claims; it is in the government’s name that the action must be brought; it is the government’s injury that provides the measure for the damages that are to be trebled; and it is the government that must receive the lion’s share-at least 70%-of any recovery.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. QK0903325 v Huron Consulting Group, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03608, 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

, , ,

Continuous Representation Doctrine Did Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Fraud, Excessive Fees and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Actions Were Not Duplicative of the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Punitive Damages Claim Properly Pled

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, determined the continuous representation doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations for the legal malpractice cause of action, the fraud, excessive fees, and unjust enrichment causes of action were not duplicative of the legal malpractice action, and the demand for punitive damages properly survived dismissal. It was alleged that defendants-attorneys gave the plaintiffs bad advice re: a tax shelter and failed to inform plaintiffs of the close business ties between the attorneys and a firm which profited directly from the advice given plaintiffs. With regard to the continuous representation doctrine, the court explained that, in order to toll the statute, the representation must relate to the specific matter out of which the malpractice is alleged to have arisen—an on-going relationship on other matters does not toll the statute. The allegation that the defendants did not disclose their business relationship with the firm profiting from the legal advice was sufficient to support the fraud cause of action (as “non-duplicative”). The excessive fees and unjust enrichment causes of action were likewise not duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action. The punitive damages claim was sufficiently pled because it alleged a wide-ranging scheme affecting many of defendants’ clients:

…[W]hile there was certainly the possibility that the need for future legal work would be required with respect to the tax strategy, plaintiffs could not have “acutely” anticipated the need for further counsel from defendants that would trigger the continuous representation toll. * * *

Defendants argue that, because the legal malpractice claim is time-barred, plaintiffs’ other claims arising out of the representation are also time-barred since they are merely duplicative of the malpractice cause of action. This contention derives from CPLR 214(6), which was enacted to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing the three-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice claims by characterizing a defendant’s failure to meet professional standards as something else, such as a breach of contract (for which there is a six-year statute of limitations) … . The key to determining whether a claim is duplicative of one for malpractice is discerning the essence of each claim … . * * *  Here, the essences of the fraud and malpractice claims are sufficiently distinct from one another that the court properly did not invoke the duplicative claims doctrine. * * *

The excessive fee and unjust enrichment claims are also not duplicative of the malpractice claim. The former is stated regardless of the quality of the work performed, so long as a plaintiff can reasonably allege that the fee bore no rational relationship to the product delivered … . Here, plaintiffs did so, since they asserted that defendants collected a $425,000 fee for a “cookie cutter” legal opinion. By the same logic, the unjust enrichment claim, which is predicated on the excessiveness of the $425,000 fee, also properly survived the motion to dismiss. * * *

…[P]laintiffs’ claim for punitive damages properly survived dismissal. Defendants’ conduct is alleged to have been directed at a wide swath of clients, and the first amended complaint sufficiently alleges intentional and malicious treatment of those clients as well as a “wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations” … .  Johnson v Proskauer Rose LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 03626, 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

,

Cross-Examination About the Omission of Exculpatory Information from a Statement Made to Police Is Not the Same as Cross-Examination About the Exercise of the Right to Remain Silent

The First Department noted that defendant was properly cross-examined about the omission of exculpatory information provided in his direct testimony from the statement he had given to police. “After receiving Miranda warnings, and agreeing to provide a statement to the police, defendant made statements that omitted significant exculpatory matter that he included in his trial testimony. Under the circumstances, this was an unnatural omission, and a permissible basis for impeachment…”.  People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 03469, 1st Dept, 4-28-15

 

, ,

All Causes of Action Against a Provider of Clinical Laboratory Services, Which Were Based Upon the Alleged Misreading of a Tissue Sample, Governed by the 2 1/2-Year Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations

The First Department determined that all the causes of action against Quest, a clinical laboratory which analyzed a Pap smear tissue sample, were subject to the two-and-one-half-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions (as opposed to the three-year statute for negligence actions generally).  The complaint alleged Quest negligently misread the tissue sample.  In addition, the complaint alleged regulatory infractions, i.e., no plan for error reduction and failure to adequately implement, maintain or supervise quality assurance.  The court explained the relevant law:

It is settled that a negligent act or omission “that constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician constitutes malpractice” … . Laboratory services, such as Quest’s, performed at the direction of a physician are an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment … . Accordingly, a claim stemming from the rendition of such services is a medical malpractice claim … .

Plaintiffs however make additional claims that Quest failed to properly employ a plan for error reduction and failed to adequately implement, maintain or supervise quality assurance. These claims cannot be distinguished from allegations of medical malpractice. In applying the statute of limitations, courts must look to the reality or essence of a claim rather than its form … . The critical factor in distinguishing whether conduct may be deemed malpractice or ordinary negligence is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant allegedly breached … . The additional claims put forth in this case would not be actionable in the absence of the misreading of the tissue sample, the basis of the malpractice claim. All of the regulatory infractions alleged by plaintiffs bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment … . Annunziata v Quest Diagnostics Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03466, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

,

The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed

The First Department determined the police officer’s observations of the defendant’s actions (head turning both ways) in a “high narcotics area” justified his approach of the defendant, who was sitting in a car (founded suspicion/common-law right of inquiry).  Asking the defendant what was in his pocket after the defendant pulled his hand from his jacket was also justified. However, the officer’s “tapping” of an object in defendant’s pocket was not justified.  The intrusion (tapping the pocket) and the subsequent frisk of the defendant were not supported by reasonable suspicion of a crime or by the need to ensure the officer’s safety. The arrest was invalid and the motion to suppress all seized items, as well as the statements made by the defendant, should have been granted:

Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police at approximately 9 p.m. in a “high narcotics area.” As an officer approached the passenger side of the vehicle, he noticed defendant’s “head turning both ways and a lot of . . . movement coming from the area of the front passenger seat.” As he reached the passenger side window, he saw defendant, who appeared nervous, “pulling his hand from his jacket, from the fold of his jacket.” When the officer asked defendant what he “put in [his] jacket,” defendant “mumbled something unintelligible or really didn’t say much.” The officer then reached into the car, “tapped” the pocket of defendant’s jacket with the flashlight he was holding, and felt “something hard.”

The officer’s observations, up until the time he arrived at the passenger window, gave rise to founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, and so justified his question regarding what defendant had put in his pocket, which constituted a common-law inquiry … . However, we find that the physical intrusion of tapping defendant’s pocket was unauthorized. The circumstances did not give rise to the reasonable suspicion required to authorize a frisk. Nor was the officer’s conduct justifiable as a “minimal self-protective measure”…, which is permissible in furtherance of the common-law right of inquiry, where sufficient concerns for personal safety are present … . The circumstances, viewed as a whole, did not suggest any need for the officer to take such a precaution. At the time of the officer’s intrusion, defendant was not reaching for an area where a weapon might be located, there was no suggestion that a weapon was present or that violence was imminent, and there was no other basis for a self-protective intrusion.

Because the ensuing frisk outside the car, and the resulting arrest, depended on the initial improper intrusion, they were invalid as well. In any event, we also find that the search of the plastic bag following defendant’s arrest was not supported by exigent circumstances … . People v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 03458, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

, ,

Special Proceedings, Here a Motion to File a Late Notice of Claim, Are Subject to the Same Standards and Rules as Motions for Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Should Not Have Considered New Evidence Presented for the First Time in Reply Papers

In finding that plaintiff’s motion to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted (inadequate excuse for delay, misrepresentations made to the court), the First Department explained that Supreme Court should not have considered matters raised for the first time in petitioner’s reply papers.  The court noted that special proceedings are subject to the same standards and rules as those applied to summary judgment motions:

As a matter of procedure, the motion court erred in entertaining arguments advanced for the first time in petitioners’ reply papers and in accepting their offer of new proof, unnecessarily protracting summary proceedings. As succinctly stated by this Court:

“It is settled that a special proceeding is subject to the same standards and rules of decision as apply on a motion for summary judgment, requiring the court to decide the matter upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised'” … .

We further held that where, as here, a petition is unsupported by sufficient evidentiary proof, the petitioning party will not be entitled to remedy those deficiencies …, thereby extending a procedure providing for summary disposition through “unnecessary and unauthorized elaboration” … . We have consistently stated that in proceedings subject to summary determination, no consideration is to be accorded to novel arguments raised in reply papers … . That this Court may, in the exercise of discretion, entertain such arguments upon review … does not endorse the unnecessary extension of summary proceedings. Under these circumstances, it was improvident to excuse petitioners’ deceit and grant their application to serve a late notice of claim. Matter of Gonzalez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03467, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

Including “Statute of Limitations” in a Catch-All Paragraph Listing Many Affirmative Defenses Did Not Provide Plaintiff with Sufficient Notice—At a Bare Minimum, the Duration of the Relevant Statute of Limitations, Six Years Here, Should Be Pled

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, with an extensive concurrence, determined that the inclusion of the “statute of limitations” in a catch-all paragraph listing many affirmative defenses did not provide sufficient notice to the plaintiff.  In addition to failing to separately number and plead each affirmative defense (as required by the CPLR) the defendant failed to plead what the applicable statute of limitations (six years here) was. The court criticized a Court of Appeals case which said that simply mentioning the “statute of limitations” as an affirmative defense is sufficient notice—the First Department specifically suggested that the Court of Appeals revisit the issue. The court held that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the failure to plead the applicable (six-year) statute of limitations because the issue was not directly addressed during discovery as a result of the insufficient notice.  Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant was reversed on the merits (competing expert affidavits raised questions of fact). The defendant was allowed to replead the affirmative defense and the plaintiff was allowed further discovery on the issue:

The result of defendant’s failure to comply with CPLR 3014 is that its statute of limitations defense lay buried within a paragraph of mostly irrelevant, and conclusory, defenses. Although plaintiff could have moved to compel separate numbering …, it was not required to make such a motion because defendant’s answer did not necessitate a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3018; CPLR 3024). Thus, plaintiff cannot be forced to accept the defective answer simply because it declined to make a motion to compel separate numbering.

Further, we have no doubt that defendant was permitted to plead its affirmative defenses hypothetically — which it apparently attempted to do by “reserving” those defenses unto itself — but only insofar as those defenses were concise, separately numbered, and sufficiently stated (CPLR 3013; CPLR 3014). A permissive hypothetical pleading does not extend so far as to authorize a defendant to plead each and every affirmative defense that might exist without regard to its relevance to the cause(s) of action presented by the complaint. Permitting such conduct here would effectively sanction deception on the part of defendant, whether intentional or not, thereby avoiding the CPLR’s notice requirement. In other words, defendant’s formulation of its laundry list of defenses in hypothetical terms does not exempt it from the other requirements of CPLR 3014.

The question, therefore, becomes one of prejudice. That is, the CPLR directs us to construe a defendant’s answer liberally and disregard defects unless a substantial right of the plaintiff would be prejudiced (see CPLR 3026). This must be done in light of the overarching directive that the CPLR “be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every civil judicial proceeding” (CPLR 104). “[W]e must literally apply the mandate [to construe pleadings liberally] as directed and thus make the test of prejudice one of primary importance” … . * * *

It seems clear that a court cannot require a level of particularity beyond that outlined by the Official Forms; to do so would contravene CPLR 107’s command that pleadings that comply with the forms are sufficient as a matter of law … . Thus, the most that a court could require of a defendant pleading the statute of limitations is to state the applicable period of limitations, as set forth in Official Form 17. We acknowledge that Official Form 17 establishes a ceiling, not a floor. To be sure, a defendant whose answer pleads the “statute of limitations” and includes the applicable period of limitations will necessarily be in compliance with the official form, and courts must deem that pleading sufficient pursuant to CPLR 107 and CPLR 3013. Scholastic Inc. v Pace Plumbing Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03489, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

Summary Judgment Motion Served Within 60 Days of the Filing of the Note of Issue but Filed on the 61st Day Deemed Untimely

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, strictly enforced a Supreme Court “individual part rule” and deemed a summary judgment motion untimely.  The rule requires a motion for summary judgment to “filed” within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue.  Here the motion was served within the 60 days but was filed on the 61st day. Connolly v 129 E. 69th St. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03450, 1st Dept 4-28-30

 

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