You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Even If Information About Prosecution Witness’ Recent Drug Sales Had Been Withheld in Violation of Brady/Giglio, the Withheld Information Was Not “Material” In That It Would Not Have Affected the Outcome

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that there was insufficient evidence that a Brady/Giglio violation had occurred and that, assuming there was a violation, it would not have affected the verdict.  The underlying question was whether the prosecution was aware a cooperating witnesses had lied on the stand when he testified he no longer sold drugs:

…[D]efendant’s principal claim is that the People violated their obligations under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]) and its progeny. It is well established that a defendant has the right, under both the State and Federal Constitutions, to discover favorable evidence in the People’s possession that is material to guilt or punishment … . Furthermore, the People’s Brady obligations apply to both exculpatory and impeachment evidence (see Giglio v United States, 405 US 150, 154 [1972]). Such evidence, however, “is subject to Brady disclosure only if it is within the prosecution’s custody, possession, or control” … . “To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” … . * * *

It is axiomatic that there can be no Brady violation unless the suppressed information is “material” … . Where, as here, a defendant has made a specific request for the undisclosed information, “the materiality element is established provided there exists a reasonable possibility that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … . Under this standard, even if the information about [the witness’] recent drug sales had been disclosed before the end of trial, there is no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different. People v Stilley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02715, First Dept 3-31-15

 

,

Nervous and Uncooperative Actions by Defendant Justified Search of Area Inside Defendant’s Car After Defendant Was Out of the Car and Had Been Frisked

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the nervous and uncooperative actions of the defendant justified the warrantless search of a bag inside the car defendant was driving, after defendant was outside the car and had been frisked:

The testimony supports the trial court’s finding that the facts available to the officers, including defendant’s furtive behavior, suspicious actions in looking into the back seat on multiple occasions and refusal to follow the officers’ legitimate directions, went beyond mere nervousness. Rather, defendant’s actions both inside and outside of the vehicle created a “perceptible risk” and supported a reasonable conclusion that a weapon that posed an actual and specific danger to their safety was secreted in the area behind the front passenger seat, which justified the limited search of that area, even after defendant had been removed from the car and frisked … . People v Hardee, 2015 NY Slip Op 02573, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

,

Recorded Conversation In Which Defendant Did Not Respond to Statements by Victim that He Had Broken Her Ribs Was Admissible

The First Department determined portions of a recorded phone call in which defendant did not respond to the victim’s statements that he had broker her ribs were admissible because a person in defendant’s position would have been expected to answer:

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting a phone call placed by defendant to the victim while defendant was incarcerated, in which the victim repeatedly stated that defendant had broken her ribs. The record supports the court’s findings that defendant heard and understood the victim’s accusation, and that a person in defendant’s position would have been expected to answer … . Rather than directly addressing the victim’s statement, defendant repeatedly attempted to change the subject, such as by asking the victim whether she meant that he posed a “threat” to her. It is not dispositive that defendant asked the victim to repeat herself after the fourth out of five times she stated that he had broken her ribs, since defendant did not otherwise indicate that he was unable to hear or understood her. Although the phone call was recorded by the Department of Correction pursuant to a standard policy made known to all inmates, the rule excluding “silence in the face of police interrogation” … was not implicated, since defendant’s admissions by silence were made to a civilian. Moreover, the court’s thorough limiting instructions also minimized any potential unfair prejudice. People v Vining, 2015 NY Slip Op 02570, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

Fall of a Heavy Rail from a Two- To Three-Foot Stack Was an Elevation-Related Event

The First Department determined the fall of a heavy rail from a stack two to three feet high was an elevation-related event within the meaning of the Labor Law:

We agree with the motion court’s finding that the pile of rails that were stacked two and one-half to three feet high was not de minimis, given the approximately 1500 pound weight of the rail and “the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent” … . The harm plaintiff suffered was the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to the rail that struck plaintiff … .

“What is essential to a conclusion that an object requires securing is that it present a foreseeable elevation risk in light of the work being undertaken” … . It was foreseeable that during hoisting, a crane could strike the stacked pile of rails causing it to fall …, and therefore, the rail that struck plaintiff was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … . We are not persuaded by the City’s contention that plaintiff failed to identify a necessary and expected safety device, as plaintiff demonstrated that the City could have used secure braces, stays, or even additional lines to stabilize the stacked rails … . Jordan v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02565, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised Whether Plaintiff’s Infant-Daughter’s Physical and Mental Deficiencies Were Caused by Inadequate Medical Treatment Prior to and During Birth, Despite Indications Plaintiff’s Daughter Was Born Healthy

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversed Supreme Court and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case.  The First Department laid out in great detail the plaintiff-mother’s experts’ opinions about the causes of the her infant-daughter’s (Kailen’s) mental and physical deficiencies and determined questions of fact had been raised about the adequacy of medical treatment prior to and during Kailen’s birth, in spite of indications of Kailen’s good health at the time of birth:

A defendant in a medical malpractice action establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that in treating the plaintiff, he or she did not depart from good and accepted medical practice, or that any such departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries … . Once a defendant meets that burden, the plaintiff must rebut the prima facie showing via medical evidence attesting that the defendant departed from accepted medical practice and that such departure was a proximate cause of the injuries alleged … .

Generally, “the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants” … . To defeat summary judgment, the expert’s opinion “must demonstrate the requisite nexus between the malpractice allegedly committed’ and the harm suffered” … .

Here, in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to both departure from good and accepted medical practice and causation. * * *

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, plaintiff’s medical evidence was sufficient to defeat summary dismissal of the complaint. Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s experts failed to rebut its contention that, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of permanent neurological injury at or near the time of Kailen’s birth, there is no medical basis for connecting her current condition with the “circumstances of the labor and delivery,” is unavailing. Dr. Adler’s assertions that brain injuries at the time of birth can be diagnosed based on observations over time contradict defendant’s contention. In addition, a report prepared by Dr. Joseph Carfi, dated March 21, 2012, based on his physical examination of Kailen, and medical records, including those from defendant and the Center for Congenital Disorders, notes that Kailen was diagnosed at the Center for Congenital Disorders on May 23, 1996, when she was five months old, with microcephaly, and mild developmental delay. By 2012, she suffered significant mental retardation with developmental delays and lack of age appropriate personal independence. Her impairments are permanent and preclude her from living alone as an adult. Thus, although Kailen had excellent Apgar scores and otherwise appeared normal at birth, plaintiff nonetheless raised triable issues of fact as to causation … . Anyie B. v Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 02576. 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

The “Following the Settlements” Doctrine and “Following Form” Clauses as They Apply to Reinsurers Discussed in Some Depth

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in an action by an insurance company, New Hampshire, against a reinsurer, Clearwater.  The underlying actions were against the manufacturer Kaiser and consisted primarily, but not entirely, of asbestos-related products liability claims.  AIG, an insurer-participant in the Kaiser/AIG settlement of the claims, had allocated 100% of Kaiser’s settlement to asbestos liability claims. Clearwater challenged that allocation.  A summary of the nature of the primary action is quoted below, followed by descriptions of the “follow the settlements” doctrine and “following form” clauses:

New Hampshire has brought this action against defendant Clearwater Insurance Company (Clearwater), a reinsurer of the excess policy New Hampshire issued to Kaiser, seeking to require Clearwater to indemnify New Hampshire for the share prescribed by its reinsurance certificate of the portion of the Kaiser settlement payments (which are being made over a 10-year period) that AIG has allocated to the New Hampshire policy. In its defense, Clearwater challenges AIG’s allocation of 100% of the settled losses to asbestos products liability claims, contending that this allocation unreasonably results in the reinsured New Hampshire policy bearing part of the cost of settling the premises, bad faith and defense cost claims that Kaiser had not asserted against New Hampshire or that were not covered by the New Hampshire policy. … * * *

…[T]he “follow the settlements” doctrine “ordinarily bars challenge by a reinsurer to the decision of [the cedent] to settle a case for a particular amount” … . Specifically, under this doctrine,

“a reinsurer is required to indemnify for payments reasonably within the terms of the original policy, even if technically not covered by it. A reinsurer cannot second guess the good faith liability determinations made by its reinsured . . . . The rationale behind this doctrine is two-fold: first, it meets the goal of maximizing coverage and settlement and second, it streamlines the reimbursement process and reduces litigation . . .” … .

Stated otherwise, as “an exception to the general rule that contract interpretation is subject to de novo review” …, the “follow the settlements” doctrine “insulates a reinsured’s liability determinations from challenge by a reinsurer unless they are fraudulent, in bad faith, or the payments are clearly beyond the scope of the original policy or in excess of the reinsurer’s agreed-to exposure” … . * * *

The purpose of a “following form” clause is “to achieve concurrency between the reinsured contract and the policy of reinsurance, thereby assuring the ceding company, that by purchasing reinsurance, it has covered the same risks by reinsurance that it has undertaken on behalf of the original insured under its own policy” … . Accordingly, “[a] following form’ clause in a policy of reinsurance incorporates by reference all the terms and conditions of the reinsured policy, except to the extent that the reinsurance contract by its own terms specifically defines the scope of coverage differently” … .  * * * The authors of one treatise on reinsurance law caution that “a follow the form’ clause should not be confused with a follow the fortunes’ clause or a follow the settlements’ clause” (Ostrager § 2:03[a] at 73).  New Hampshire Ins. Co. v Clearwater Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 02438, 1st Dept 3-24-15

 

,

Summary Judgment May Be Based Upon an Unpled Affirmative Defense/Oral Waiver May Be Effective in the Face of a “Written Waiver” Requirement in the Contract

The First Department noted that a motion for summary judgment can be based upon an unpleaded affirmative defense in the absence of surprise and determined there was a question of fact whether an oral waiver was effective in the face of a contract provision requiring any waiver to be in writing:

Defendants’ failure to plead the affirmative defense of waiver in their answer did not preclude them from asserting such defense for the first time on summary judgment, since “[t]here is no prohibition against moving for summary judgment based on an unpleaded defense where the opposing party is not taken by surprise and does not suffer prejudice as a result” … . * * *

Although the management agreement contained a provision that any waivers must be in writing, “a contracting party may orally waive enforcement of a contract term notwithstanding a provision to the contrary in the agreement. Such waiver may be evinced by words or conduct, including partial performance”… . Matthew Adam Props., Inc. v The United House of Prayer for All People of the Church on the Rock of the Apostolic Faith, 2015 NY Slip Op 02419, 1st Dept 3-24-15

 

Heavy Shelves Bolted to the Wall Constituted a “Structure” and Dismantling the Shelves Constituted “Demolition” within the Meaning of the Labor Law

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability re: his Labor Law 240(1)  and 241(6) claims.  The court determined the dismantling of heavy shelves which were bolted to the wall constituted demolition of a structure within the meaning of the Labor Law:

Plaintiff was injured in a fall from an unsecured ladder while working in a warehouse, where his job was to “clean out, remove machines, break down structures . . . and ship them out.” The work included removal of heavy machinery and shelves that ran from floor to ceiling across three second-floor walls, each 50 feet long and 8 feet high, and were bolted to the floors and walls. The breaking down and removing of the shelves required the use of impact wrenches and sawzalls to cut the bolts. Removed materials, including shelving, were heavy, and had to be loaded in cages, which were then lifted by a pallet jack, moved to the edge of the second floor, and lowered to the first floor with a forklift. The dismantling of the shelves was a sufficiently complex and difficult task to render the shelving a “structure” within the meaning of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . Moreover, in dismantling the shelving, plaintiff was engaged in “demolition” for purposes of §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . Phillips v Powercrat Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 02407, 1st Dept 3-24-15

 

, ,

The “Strict Compliance” Rule Re: Documents Required for a Drawdown from a Letter of Credit Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that minor discrepancies in the documents required by a letter of credit as a prerequisite for a drawdown did not violate the “strict compliance” rule.  Here a true copy of a document, rather than the original, was submitted.  The true copy was deemed to satisfy the “strict compliance” rule:

…[A]pplying the standard of strict compliance, plaintiff’s drawdown request should have been honored because, under these circumstances, the production of a true copy of amendment 2, instead of an original, was sufficient even to satisfy the strict compliance standard.

Strict compliance has been said to require that “the papers, documents and shipping directions . . . be followed as stated in the letter [of credit],” that “[n]o substitution and no equivalent, through interpretation or logic, will serve,” and that “[t]here is no room for documents which are almost the same, or which will do just as well” … . Even slight discrepancies in compliance with the terms of a letter of credit have been held to justify refusal to pay … .

“The [strict compliance] rule finds justification in the bank’s role in the transaction being ministerial . . . and to require it to determine the substantiality of discrepancies would be inconsistent with its function” … . The “reason for the strict [compliance] rule is to protect the issuer from having to know the commercial impact of a discrepancy in the documents” … .

However, as this Court has recently observed, “According to the official UCC commentary, the strict compliance standard does not require that the documents presented by the beneficiary be exact in every detail” (BasicNet S.P.A v CFP Servs., Ltd., __ AD3d __, __, 2015 NY Slip Op 02080, [1st Dept 2015]) [summarized directly below]. The doctrine of strict compliance “does not mean slavish conformity to the terms of the letter of credit . . . [and] does not demand oppressive perfectionism” (id., quoting Official Comment 1, reprinted in McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62½, UCC 5-108 at 367). Ladenburg Thalmann & Co, Inc. v Signature Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 02224, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

Safety Device Requirement in Industrial Code Was Specific Enough to Support Labor Law 241(6) Action Based Upon the Absence of a Safety Guard on a Tile Grinder

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that a rule (Industrial Code) requiring that all safety devices be kept sound and operable was specific enough to support a Labor Law 241(6) action based upon the absence of safety guard from a tile grinder:

The motion court erred in finding that section 23-1.5(c)(3) was too general to support plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5(c)(3) provides, “All safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged.” In Misicki v Caradonna (12 NY3d 511, 520-521 [2009]), the Court of Appeals held that the third sentence of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a), which says, “Upon discovery, any structural defect or unsafe condition in such equipment shall be corrected by necessary repairs or replacement,” imposed an affirmative duty, rather than merely reciting common-law principles, and that therefore its violation was sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The regulation plaintiff relies on here, 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c), has a structure similar to 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a): the first two sentences of section 23-9.2(a) and the first two paragraphs of section 23-1.5(c) employ general phrases (e.g., “good repair, “proper operating condition,” “sufficient inspections,” “adequate frequency”) while the third sentence and paragraph “mandate[] a distinct standard of conduct, rather than a general reiteration of common-law principles, and [are] precisely the type of concrete specification’ that Ross [v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. (81 NY2d 494 [1993])] requires” (Misicki, 12 NY3d at 521). Since the final paragraph of section 23-1.5(c) is functionally indistinguishable from the third sentence of section 23-9.2(a), in that both mandate a distinct standard of conduct, we find that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Misicki applies here, and reject the dissent’s suggestion that the preamble of section 23-1.5 precludes any reliance on the section for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6). Becerra v Promenade Apts. Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02191, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

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