You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

CITY RETIREES THREATENED WITH ELIMINATION OF THEIR EXISTING HEALTH INSURANCE AND AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the doctrine of promissory estoppel justified a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from “eliminating … retirees’ existing health insurance, automatically enrolling them in a new Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan, enforcing a June 30, 2023 deadline for retirees to opt out of the new plan, and implementing any other aspect of the City’s new retiree healthcare policy:”

… [T]he record shows a clear and unambiguous promise, made for more than 50 years, that upon an employee’s retirement, Medicare would provide the first level of hospital and medical insurance benefits and the City’s benefits program would provide the second level to fill in the gaps. * * *

… [T]he record shows detrimental reliance on the promise. * * *

… [P]etitioners have demonstrated injury. Many City retirees stated that their chosen providers and hospitals, like many healthcare providers, do not accept the MAPs [Medicare Advantage Plans]. The City’s plan to automatically enroll petitioners in the Aetna MAP and terminate their current Medigap coverage would result in injury to retirees whose medical providers do not accept the Aetna MAP. * * *

The particular manner in which the parties chose to litigate this action before Supreme Court resulted in a record with significant evidentiary support for petitioners’ position and very little support for respondents’ position. That record and the arguments the parties chose to make on appeal lead to the conclusion that petitioners are entitled to relief under their promissory estoppel cause of action. Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02771, First Dept 5-21-24

Practice Point: Here the promissory estoppel doctrine was applied to permanently enjoin the city from eliminating city retirees’ health insurance and automatically enrolling them in a Medicare Advantage Plan.

 

, , ,

HERE THERE WAS NO VALID REASON TO DENY DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s request to represent himself should have been granted:

The court deprived defendant of his constitutional right to self-representation when it denied defendant’s motion to proceed pro se despite defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. A defendant may invoke the right to self-representation where “(1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … . Here, defendant made a timely and unequivocal request to represent himself, and during an extensive inquiry, at which time the court repeatedly warned defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, defendant affirmed that he understood the risks and insisted on representing himself at trial … . Defendant’s lack of familiarity with the law was not a proper basis for the denial of his motion … . Further, nothing in the record indicates that defendant’s motion was calculated to undermine or delay the progress of the trial— indeed, the court determined that defendant was not malingering—and defendant’s purported “outbursts” during two prior pretrial video conferences did not suggest an intent to disrupt the proceedings … . People v Ivezic, 2024 NY Slip Op 02785, First Dept 5-21-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s lack of knowledge of the law is not a valid reason for denying defendant’s request to represent himself at trial.

 

, ,

TENANT’S ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF WAS NOT FORESEEABLE; THEREFORE THE LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR FAILING TO EVICT THE TENANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a tenant’s (Girard’s) attack on plaintiff was not foreseeable. Therefore the negligence action against the landlord for failing to evict Girard was dismissed:

Defendant demonstrated … that it was not liable for third-party defendant Girard’s attack on plaintiff because it was not reasonably foreseeable … . No evidence was presented that Girard had engaged in criminal conduct prior to the attack or that he was violent, had a propensity toward violence, or had threatened any tenants of the building. Inconsiderate behavior, such as playing loud music at all hours, engaging in loud arguments with his sister in the apartment, and banging on the apartment walls, is insufficient to have placed defendant on notice that Girard would stab plaintiff in response to plaintiff’s noise complaints … . While it was conceivable that the dispute might escalate into violence, “conceivability is not the equivalent of foreseeability” … . Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendant was negligent in not taking steps to evict Girard prior to the attack…. . Goris v New York City Hous. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 02661, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: Here the tenant who attacked plaintiff, although loud and argumentative, had never been violent. Therefore the tenant’s attack was not foreseeable and the landlord could not be held liable in negligence for failing to evict the tenant.

 

,

THE INSURER’S OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BASED UPON THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that although the insurer (Everest) was required to defend the plaintiff (CCM) in the underlying action, the ruling that Everest must indemnify CCM was premature:

Supreme Court should not have found that Everest was required to indemnify CCM. Although Everest concedes that it must defend CCM, “the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify,” because only the latter “is determined by the actual basis for the insured’s liability to a third person and is not measured by the allegations of the pleadings” … . In the underlying action, there has been no determination whether the plaintiff’s injury was “caused, in whole or in part, by” the acts or omissions of the named insured or of those acting on its behalf … . Therefore, any declaration of the duty to indemnify was premature ( … see … Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v GTJ Co., Inc., 139 AD3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2016] [“It is after the resolution of that action where the extent of plaintiff’s indemnification obligations can be fully determined”]). Harleysville Ins. Co. v United Fire Protection, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02663, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: An insurer’s obligation to indemnify cannot be determined based on the allegations in the pleadings.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PIPE WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION INHERENT IN THE WORK, IT WAS AN AVOIDABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THERE REMAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE TRIPPING HAZARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact which rendered the summary judgment motion premature in this Labor Law 241(6) action. A pipe 5-12 inches above the floor, although a dangerous condition inherent in the work, was an “avoidable dangerous condition.”  There remain questions of fact about preventative measures taken to minimize the tripping hazard:

Plaintiff, a welder, tripped over electrical conduit piping that rose vertically 5-12 inches in height from the floor surface in the lobby of a new building under construction and was injured. While the presence of the electrical conduit piping was a “dangerous condition” “inherent to the task at hand,” the risk of tripping over the conduit was an “avoidable dangerous condition” for which defendants could have utilized preventative measures that would not have made it impossible to complete the work … . Indeed, it is undisputed that plywood boxes ordinarily were placed on the protruding conduit piping, which mitigated the risk of tripping without rendering the overall work impossible to complete. The plywood boxes, however, were removed at the time of plaintiff’s accident. Issues of fact remain regarding the preventative measures taken to mitigate the risks associated with the dangerous condition. Accordingly, summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) is premature and the claim is reinstated to resolve the issues of fact detailed above. Maldonado v Hines 1045 Ave. of the Ams. Invs. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02666, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: In the context of a Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, even though a dangerous condition is inherent in the work, it may be an avoidable dangerous condition requiring measures to mitigate the risk.

 

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF FLOOR WAX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the area where she slipped and fell was excessively waxed:

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact as to “the negligent application of wax . . . by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present” … . Plaintiff testified that the waxy substance on the floor was on the side of her clothing and that where she fell there was an indentation into the substance. This testimony is sufficient to establish an issue of fact as to whether wax was negligently applied … . This evidence “conflicted with [defendants’] assertions that the area was never waxed, creating triable issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment” … . Scaccia v Brookfield Props. One WFC Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02677, First Dept 5-14-23

Practice Point: The negligent application of floor wax can result in liability for a slip and fall.

 

, , ,

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION CHALLENGING A RESTRAINING ORDER RESTRICTING HIS ABILITY TO MAKE STATEMENTS DIRECTED AT POTENTIAL WITNESSES IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined the restraining order restricting former President Donald Trump’s speech during his criminal trial was valid. Trump’s petition for a writ of prohibition was denied:

The Federal Restraining Order is nearly identical to the Restraining Order issued against petitioner in the underlying criminal case … .

Petitioner brings this petition because he disagrees with where the circuit court drew the line in balancing the competing considerations of his First Amendment rights to free expression and the effective functioning of the judicial, prosecutorial and defense processes … . Weighing these concerns, the circuit court ultimately concluded that, given the record, the court had “a duty to act proactively to prevent the creation of an atmosphere of fear or intimidation aimed at preventing trial participants and staff from performing their functions within the trial process” … . This Court adopts the reasoning in the circuit court’s Federal Restraining Order Decision.

The Federal Restraining Order Decision properly found that the order was necessary under the circumstances, holding that “Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process” … . First, the circuit court concluded that petitioner’s directed statements at potential witnesses concerning their participation in the criminal proceeding posed a significant and imminent threat to their willingness to participate fully and candidly, and that courts have a duty to shield witnesses from influences that could affect their testimony and undermine the integrity of the trial process … . Justice Merchan properly determined that petitioner’s public statements posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses in this case as well. Matter of Trump v Merchan, 2024 NY Slip Op 02680, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: A court has the power to restrict speech by a defendant in a criminal trial which is directed at potential trial witnesses and which could threaten the witnesses’ willingness to testify.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS QUANTUM MERUIT CASE. DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE A JURY TRIAL AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON DAMAGES; BENCH-TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant never waived a jury trial in this quantum-meruit action. Therefore, although plaintiff was granted summary judgment, defendant was entitled to a jury trial on damages:

… [T]he order awarding damages must be reversed, and the judgment vacated … . Upon granting plaintiff summary judgment for liability on its quantum meruit claim, Supreme Court conducted a hearing on attorneys’ fees. However, claims seeking recovery under the “quasi-contractual theory of quantum meruit” for “only money damages” are considered “actions at law” entitling parties to a trial by jury … . Defendant did not waive a jury trial, but instead filed his jury demand “within fifteen days after service of the note of issue,” and more than a year before the purported attorney fee hearing was held (CPLR 4102[a]). Defendant’s “right to a jury trial [wa]s not lost, when [the] motion [and cross-motion] for summary judgment [were] decided against [him]” … , yet Supreme Court deprived him of this right by conducting a bench trial on damages … . Hilton Wiener LLC v Zenk, 2024 NY Slip Op 02595, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: Quantum meruit is an action at law entitling parties to a jury trial.

Practice Point: Here defendant never waived a jury trial and, although summary judgment was awarded to plaintiff, defendant was entitled to a jury trial on damages.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT MADE STATEMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA WHICH RAISED A POSSIBLE INTOXICATION DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER; THE ISSUE NEEDN’T BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the defendant’s statement at the time of the plea raised questions the judge should have explored. A narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies here:

The narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies in this “rare case” where defendant made statements that cast doubt upon his guilt and the court failed to satisfy its duty of inquiring further to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary … . Although defendant’s statements at sentencing raised a possible intoxication defense, the court did not make any inquiry regarding the statements or the applicability of the defense. The court’s failure to ensure that defendant understood the defense and was waiving his right to pursue it at trial requires vacatur of the plea … . People v Dozier, 2024 NY Slip Op 02602, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: If a defendant makes statements at the time of a plea which indicates a possible defense, the judge must make inquiries sufficient to ensure the plea is voluntary and intelligent.

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements at the time of the plea which indicate a possible defense and the judge fails to make sufficient inquiries, the issue is appealable in the absence of preservation.

 

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