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
The First Department determined the People were relying exclusively on the statutory presumption that weapons recovered from inside a vehicle are possessed by all the occupants. Therefore, the defendant had standing to move to suppress the weapons:
In opposition to defendant’s assertion that the weapon possession charges were based solely on the statutory presumption that weapons recovered from the interior of an automobile are deemed to be possessed by all its occupants (Penal Law § 265.15[3]), the People failed to “point to evidence reasonably tending to show the defendant’s actual or constructive possession” of the two pistols … . Instead, the People asserted that the statutory presumption did not apply, claiming erroneously that the two handguns at issue were recovered from the person of one of the car’s passengers (see Penal Law § 265.15[3][a]). The People concede on appeal that this argument was incorrect, because the two pistols (unlike a revolver found on the person of a passenger) were in fact recovered from a box on the back seat. There is no indication that the motion court relied either on the grand jury minutes or the search warrant affidavit. Because the People failed to adequately demonstrate that the charges relating to the two pistols were not based entirely on the statutory presumption, defendant had automatic standing to challenge seizure of those weapons … . People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 03396, 1st Dept 4-23-15
Although the admission of hearsay was deemed harmless error, the First Department determined that allowing the hearsay in evidence to “complete the narrative” or to “eliminate jury confusion” was improper. The hearsay identified defendant as one of the assailants by indicating the defendant’s name was one of the names mentioned in a phone call about the underlying assault. The court noted that the Confrontation Clause was not implicated because the hearsay was not “testimonial,” citing People v Gantt, 48 AD3d 59:
…[T]he hearsay nature of [the] testimony relating [an] out-of-court statement … identifying defendant as [an] assailant — either by name or by an identifying description …— was not remedied by framing the query posed … as seeking the “name mentioned …” during the call.
We do not adopt the trial court’s reasoning that the admission of this hearsay evidence was necessary to convey a coherent narrative of the relevant events or to eliminate the possibility of jury confusion … . People v Owens, 2015 NY Slip Op 03270, 1st Dept 4-21-15
The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that Supreme Court should have allowed discovery of documents relating to a prior steam pipe explosion (in Texas) in the instant proceeding, which also involves a steam pipe explosion. Defendant Con Ed sought the records of defendant Team Industrial Services, Inc. (Team), which applied pipe sealant where both explosions occurred, alleging that the pipe sealant application caused the explosions. The dissent felt the Appellate Division should defer to Supreme Court’s finding, made after an extensive review of the Texas records, that the two incidents were not sufficiently similar to warrant discovery. The First Department explained that the criteria for the reach of discovery is broad and goes beyond what might be admissible at trial:
The words “material and necessary,” as used in CPLR 3101(a) are “to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure . . . of any facts bearing on the controversy” … . “The weight to be given evidence of other [lawsuits or claims] on the issues of notice and causation, and indeed the very admissibility of such evidence . . . are not of concern in the context of disclosure” … .
In our view, the motion court applied too harsh a standard in determining that documents concerning the prior … incident are not discoverable. We are not concerned with the ultimate admissibility of the evidence at trial, but with the discovery of information concerning the prior incident, as to which a more liberal standard applies … . Matter of Steam Pipe Explosion at 41st St. & Lexington Ave., 2015 NY Slip Op 03269, 1st Dept 4-21-15
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that summary judgment, entitling the seller of shares of a cooperative allocated to a penthouse to keep the plaintiff-buyer’s $2.75 million deposit, should not have been granted. During the course of purchase negotiations a dispute arose about whether a terrace was exclusively for the use of the occupants of the penthouse or whether it was a common area which could be used by other residents. Supreme Court held the issue had been resolved in the plaintiff-buyer’s favor. But the First Department held that the proof did not demonstrate the issue had been fully resolved such that the plaintiff could be sure of an exclusive right to the use of the terrace. Because the proof did not demonstrate the issue had been fully resolved, there were questions of fact whether the seller was “ready, willing and able to close” on the time-of-the-essence closing date and whether the plaintiff had a good reason not to attend the closing. The First Department also found there were questions of fact about whether the seller had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by trying the force the closing irrespective of whether the cooperative might later take steps to interfere with the plaintiff’s exclusive use of the terrace:
Without the [cooperative’s] Board’s affirmative and unequivocal acknowledgment that the shareholders have no right to traverse the terrace, and that it would not take future action to revoke plaintiff’s exclusive right to use that space, plaintiff lacked adequate assurances that his right of exclusivity (and the market value of the apartment) would remain undisturbed if he consummated the sale … .
The [seller] has not shown that plaintiff was given these assurances and, consequently, it failed to demonstrate its ability to close … . Moreover, absent a showing that plaintiff received unequivocal assurances that the Coop would not interfere with his right of exclusivity going forward, the [seller] cannot show that plaintiff lacked a lawful excuse to abstain from attending the closing … . Pastor v DeGaetano, 2015 NY Slip Op 03307, 1st Dept 4-21-15
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a partial dissent, determined that the complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant investment fund. Although the agreements in question set up the investment fund in the Cayman Islands, targeting investments in Brazil, the agreements were negotiated, drawn up and executed in New York. Because the claims arose “from defendants’ transaction of business in New York, CPLR 302(a)(1) confer[red] personal jurisdiction over defendants.” The court explained that “[d]etermining whether long-arm jurisdiction exists under the “transacts business” provision of CPLR 302(a)(1) … is a two-pronged inquiry: “a court must decide (1) whether the defendant transacts any business in New York and, if so, (2) whether [the] cause of action aris[es] from such a business transaction” … . [In addition] [t]he assertion of personal jurisdiction must … be predicated on a defendant’s “minimal contacts” with New York to comport with due process … :”
Under New York’s long-arm jurisdiction statute, “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who . . . transacts any business within the state” (CPLR 302[a][1]). “By this single act statute . . . proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction . . . so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . Determining whether long-arm jurisdiction exists under the “transacts business” provision of CPLR 302(a)(1), therefore, is a two-pronged inquiry: “a court must decide (1) whether the defendant transacts any business in New York and, if so, (2) whether [the] cause of action aris[es] from such a business transaction” … . “In effect, the arise-from’ prong limits the broader transaction-of-business’ prong to confer jurisdiction only over those claims in some way arguably connected to the transaction” … .
The assertion of personal jurisdiction must also be predicated on a defendant’s “minimal contacts” with New York to comport with due process … . This requires an examination of the “quality and the nature of the defendant’s activity” and a finding of “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws” … . * * *
… [P]laintiff alleges that Citibank’s lawyers drafted the documents in New York. … “[T]he nature and purpose of a solitary business meeting conducted for a single day in New York may supply the minimum contacts necessary to subject a nonresident participant to the jurisdiction of our courts” … . [The drafting of the agreements] was not a “purely ministerial” act of merely executing a contract in New York that had been negotiated elsewhere, which would likely be insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction … . * * *
Finding that New York courts have personal jurisdiction over defendants in this case also comports with due process. “So long as a party avails itself of the benefits of the forum, has sufficient minimum contacts with it, and should reasonably expect to defend its actions there, due process is not offended if that party is subjected to jurisdiction . . . …. . Such is the case before us. Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with New York by purposefully entering the state to negotiate and execute contracts … . Wilson v Dantas, 2015 NY Slip Op 03088, 1st Dept 4-14-15
While defendant’s motion for summary judgment was pending, plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw. The motion was granted and the court ordered the case stayed “for 45 days from the service…” of the order dismissing plaintiff’s attorney. Plaintiff was not served with the order and defendant’s summary judgment motion was subsequently granted in plaintiff’s absence. The First Department determined that the orders issued pursuant to the summary judgment motion were a nullity. The 45 day stay never expired because the order granting the stay was never served on the plaintiff. The defendant’s argument that the stay never started because the order was not served was rejected:
After his former counsel was granted leave to withdraw, the action was stayed by court order and operation of CPLR 321(c). Because Plaintiff was never served with the order dismissing his attorney, the 45 day stay never expired. Defendant cannot avoid the stay by arguing that it did not go into effect until served on plaintiff, since the failure to serve the order cannot accrue to defendant’s benefit. Matos v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03074, 1st Dept 4-14-15
The First Department, over a dissent, determined a party claiming it was fraudulently induced to enter a contract is entitled to a jury trial despite the jury-trial waiver in the contract. Because a party alleging fraudulent inducement can either seek rescission or stand on the contract and seek damages, the party may both seek to avoid terms in the contract (here the jury-waiver clause) and rely on the contract as a defense to breach of contract allegations. The court also found that the counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation was properly dismissed because the existence of a confidential or fiduciary or other special relationship (approaching privity), which would justify reliance on representations, was not demonstrated. The criteria for negligent misrepresentation was described in some depth:
…[A]contractual jury waiver provision is inapplicable to a fraudulent inducement cause of action that challenges the validity of the underlying agreement … . … In cases where the fraudulent inducement allegations, if proved, would void the agreement, including the jury waiver clause, the party is entitled to a jury trial on the claim … .
…”[A] defrauded party to a contract may elect to either disaffirm the contract by a prompt rescission or stand on the contract and thereafter maintain an action at law for damages attributable to the fraud” … . As a result, a party alleging fraudulent inducement that elects to bring an action for damages, as opposed to opting for rescission may, under certain circumstances, still challenge the validity of the agreement … .
_____________
“A claim for negligent misrepresentation requires the plaintiff to demonstrate (1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information” … . In commercial cases “a duty to speak with care exists when the relationship of the parties, arising out of contract or otherwise, [is] such than in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information” … . Reliance on the statements must be justifiable, and “not all representations made by a seller of goods or a provider of services will give rise to a duty to speak with care” (id.). “Rather, liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust with the injured party such that reliance on the negligent misrepresentation is justified” (id.). In order to impose tort liability in a commercial case, “there must be some identifiable source of a special duty of care” … . …[A] special duty will be found “if the record supports a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” … . Generally, however, an arm’s-length business relationship between sophisticated parties will not give rise to a confidential or fiduciary relationship that would support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation … . J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Ader, 2015 NY Slip Op 03071, 1st Dept 4-14-15
Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department determined plaintiff’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim in a slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff was incapacitated by her injuries for months and did not unreasonably delay in making the application after she retained counsel. Counsel had difficulty determining the owners of the construction site in issue, of which the city was one, and the city contributed to the delay by failing to respond to plaintiff’s freedom of information requests:
Under these circumstances, where the City contributed to the delay, and the motion was made within the one-year and ninety-day statute of limitations (see CPLR 217-a; see also General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]), the City cannot argue that petitioner unduly delayed in making the motion, or that it did not acquire essential knowledge of the facts underlying petitioner’s claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period for filing a timely notice of claim … . Matter of Rivera v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03029, 1st Dept 4-9-15
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined that defendant’s surreptitious taking of photographs of plaintiffs through the windows of plaintiffs’ apartment did not violate the plaintiffs’ right to privacy codified in Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. The critically acclaimed photographer assembled the photographs, which were for sale, in an exhibition called “Neighbors” and put them up on his website. The court explained that the “newsworthy and public interest” exemption from the prohibitions of Civil Rights Law 50 and 51 has been extended to works of art by some courts, although the New York Court of Appeals has yet to consider the issue. The court wrote: “[We are constrained to conclude] works of art fall outside the prohibitions of the privacy statute under the newsworthy and public concerns exemption. … [U]nder this exemption, the press is given broad leeway. This is because the informational value of the ideas conveyed by the art work is seen as a matter of public interest. We recognize that the public, as a whole, has an equally strong interest in the dissemination of images, aesthetic values and symbols contained in the art work. In our view, artistic expression in the form of art work must therefore be given the same leeway extended to the press under the newsworthy and public concern exemption to the statutory tort of invasion of privacy:”
Applying the newsworthy and public concern exemption to the complaint herein, we conclude that the allegations do not sufficiently plead a cause of action under the statutory tort of invasion of privacy. As detailed above, plaintiffs essentially allege that defendant used their images in local and national media to promote “The Neighbors,” an exhibition that included photographs of individuals taken under the same circumstances as those featuring plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further allege that the photographs were for sale at the exhibit and on a commercial website.
Accepting, as we must, plaintiffs’ allegations as true …, they do not sufficiently allege that defendant used the photographs in question for the purpose of advertising or for purpose of trade within the meaning of the privacy statute. Defendant’s use of the photos falls within the ambit of constitutionally protected conduct in the form of a work of art. Foster v Svenson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03068, 1st Dept 4-9-15
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy