You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a dissent, discussed several fundamental issues in reversing Supreme Court's sua sponte award of attorney's fees which differed from the fee agreed to by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's law firm.  The First department held that the 33 1/3% contingency fee for the trial, and an additional 10% contingency for the appeal, amounting to a 43 !/3 % contingency fee, was proper. In addition, the First Department determined the defendant did not have standing to contest the fee, Supreme Court did not have the power to adjust the fee and Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction over the case at the time it did so:

Initially, we note that defendant has no standing to challenge the fees agreed upon as between plaintiff and his counsel. CPLR 5015(a)(3) provides that “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party (emphasis added).” Defendant is not an “interested person” within the meaning of the statute, as even the motion court appeared to recognize. Defendant will pay the same amounts pursuant to the judgment regardless of the division of fees as between plaintiff and his counsel. …

Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the judgment was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by plaintiff or his attorneys. …

Defendant having no standing under CPLR 5015(a)(3) to challenge the separate fee for appellate work, the court relied on its “inherent authority” to reach the issue. A court, however, has no inherent authority to sua sponte reach the issue of attorneys' fees … .

Moreover, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to revisit the issue of the propriety of the fees, even upon the motion of a proper party. Since the Court of Appeals denied applications for review … the judgment was final, and Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to, in effect, reverse the Court by modifying the judgment … .

Plaintiff's expert, a leading expert on legal ethics, opined that it was legally and ethically permissible for the firm to collect a separate fee for appellate work, notwithstanding that the firm is entitled, under the original retainer, to a contingency fee of one third of the recovery. Plaintiff's expert opined that limiting counsel's contingent fee to that encompassed in the initial retainer “does not advance the purpose behind Section 603.7 [Rules of the Appellate Division] . . . i.e., protecting clients from gouging by attorneys.” The expert also observed that had plaintiff chosen to retain new counsel for the appeal, there would be absolutely no question that the new counsel would be entitled to a fee for his or her work, notwithstanding the fact that trial counsel was entitled to receive 33 1/3% of any recovery. Plaintiff's expert noted that it would be “anomalous” to assert that trial counsel should be compensated less favorably than new counsel for performing the work that had not been contemplated by the initial retainer. Stewart v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 09063, 1st Dept 12-30-14


,

Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck by a Car While Playing Tag Five Minutes Before School Began and Whether a Breach of that Duty Proximately Caused the Injury

The First Department determined there were issues of fact raised concerning the school's duty to the plaintiff, an eighth grade student, after he was discharged from a school bus five minutes before school began.  The student was struck by a car when he darted or was pushed into the street while playing tag:

Although the driver of the car was not negligent in causing the accident …, the record presents issues of fact as to whether defendant [board of education] owed a duty of care to protect the infant plaintiff from traffic hazards after he was discharged by the school bus in front of the school, five minutes before the school day would begin …, and whether that duty was breached by the school's failure to provide adequate safety measures, such as traffic barricades, proximately causing the injury … . Mamadou S v Feliciano, 2014 NY Slip OP 08909, 1st Dept 12-23-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff-Resident of an Adult Care Facility Did Not Have Standing to Object to An Informal Procedure Used by the Department of Health (DOH) Re: the Inspection of Adult Care Facilities (Affording a Meeting Between the Facility and DOH Prior to the Publication of an Inspection Report)—Standing to Challenge Governmental Action Discussed in Some Depth

The First Department determined that the plaintiff in a class action suit did not have standing to object to a procedure used by the Department of Health (DOH) re: its inspection of adult care facilities.  Plaintiff is a resident of an adult care facility. The DOH inspection review process (IRP) affords the operators of adult care facilities the opportunity for an informal one-hour meeting with DOH staff after an inspection report is drafted but before it is published.  Plaintiff alleged the informal meeting was not authorized by any regulation and hampered residents' rights re: grievances against a residential care facility:

Since plaintiff is challenging DOH's implementation of the IRP, a governmental action, he must establish that he has standing to do so by showing an “injury in fact,” meaning that plaintiff will actually suffer harm by the challenged administrative action and that the injury asserted by him falls “within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . The alleged injury or harm must also be in some way different from that of the public at large … .

Although plaintiff alleges that the IRP process favors adult home operators by allowing them to privately address adverse findings or corrective actions DOH identifies, without any input by residents of the adult home, plaintiff does not otherwise articulate how he is disadvantaged by this process, how the outcomes of some of these investigations would have been different had residents been permitted to participate in the IRP, or that the substandard living conditions or mistreatment he complains of are attributable to DOH's implementation of the IRP. The only “injury” plaintiff alleges is that resolution of residents' complaints are delayed when an adult home operator contests the outcome of an investigation and residents are not aware of or notified that any particular complaint is subject to an IRP. These allegations are far too generalized and speculative to satisfy the “injury in fact” requirement that would confer plaintiff with standing to challenge the procedures DOH has implemented … . Plaintiff does not articulate any harm or injury that he will suffer that is in some way an identifiable interest of his own, different from that of the public at large… .

Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class of adult home residents are also outside the “zone of interests” sought to be protected by the applicable statutory and regulatory framework under which the agency has acted … . DOH is vested with the authority to establish the procedures by which complaints are investigated and violations corrected (see Social Services Law § 461-o, 18 NYCRR § 486.2[a]). Moreover, DOH's enforcement powers are exceedingly broad, ranging from the imposition of civil penalties to the revocation, suspension or limitation of an operating certificate, after a hearing. DOH can even request that the Attorney General seek injunctive relief or criminally prosecute an operator for any violation or threatened violations of law or regulation (see SSL § 460—d; 18 NYCRR § 486.4[b]; see also 18 NYCRR §§ 486.4[b]-[h]). The governing regulatory scheme–which plaintiff does not challenge–plainly contemplates dialogue between DOH and adult home operators during the inspection process. Rather than providing for universal participation by residents in that process, they are expressly excluded from disclosure of investigation outcomes that are being contested by the operator (see Social Services Law §§ 461-a[1], [2][b], [2][c]; 461-d[3][b], [c], [g]; 461-o; 18 NYCRR 486.2[o]). The IRP is, therefore, wholly consistent with the enabling statutes. Bloomfield v Cannavo, 2014 NY Slip OP 08902, 1st Dept 12-23-14


,

Criteria for Challenge to Prenuptial Agreement Not Met

The First Department determined Family Court properly denied plaintiff’s request to extend the time for challenging a prenuptial agreement.  The court explained the analytical criteria for such a challenge:

New York has a long-standing “strong public policy favoring individuals ordering and deciding their own interests through contractual arrangements” … . It is axiomatic that a duly executed prenuptial agreement is presumed to be valid and controlling unless and until the party challenging it meets his or her very high burden to set it aside … . However, in many instances, “agreements addressing matrimonial issues have been subjected to limitations and scrutiny beyond that afforded contracts in general” … . Although “there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties” …, an agreement between prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct … . Nevertheless, such results remain the exception rather than the rule. The burden of producing evidence of such fraud, duress or overreaching is on the party asserting the invalidity of the agreement … . Anonymous v Anonymous, 2014 NY Slip Op 08766, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

, ,

Admission Into Evidence of Nontestifying Codefendant’s Grand Jury Testimony Violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the admission into evidence of the codefendant’s grand jury testimony violated the rule announced in Bruton v US, 391 US 123:

Under Bruton v United States, “a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant” … . Since the rule only applies where the codefendant’s statement was “incriminating on its face, and [not where it] became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial” …, the question before us is whether the codefendant’s grand jury testimony was facially incriminating as to defendant, rather than incriminating only when linked to other evidence. * * *

Although the codefendant’s grand jury testimony was intended as an innocent explanation of the events surrounding the alleged robbery, and admitted no wrongdoing, nevertheless it was “facially incriminating” as to defendant within the meaning of Bruton.

The codefendant’s narrative placed defendant with the codefendant throughout the relevant events and, specifically referring to defendant approximately 40 times, described defendant’s conduct. Among other things, the statement recounted that, after defendant’s return to the codefendant’s car following an absence to “get food,” the alleged robbery victim (an undercover officer) appeared at the car window, asked where the “stuff” was, and dropped prerecorded buy money (the property allegedly stolen in the charged robbery) into the car. This narrative suffices to create an inference that defendant, while outside the codefendant’s vehicle, had purported to set up a deal for a sale of contraband that was to culminate in the vehicle, but did not fulfill the deal once he entered the vehicle.  People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08765, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

, , ,

Deeply Divided Court Reverses Plaintiff’s Malicious Prosecution-False Arrest Verdict and Orders a New Trial/Error Not to Allow Unredacted Autopsy Report Into Evidence/The Nature of the Evidence Necessary to Demonstrate Probable Cause to Arrest Was the Core of the Disagreement Among the Justices

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed a plaintiff’s verdict and ordered a new trial.  Plaintiff’s baby died a few weeks after birth.  The medical examiner concluded that the baby died of malnutrition that was not due to a detectable defect in her digestive system.  The plaintiff was charged with the baby’s death, but the charges were dropped about a month later. Plaintiff sued the city, alleging malicious prosecution and false arrest.  Both causes of action require a finding that the police did not have probable cause to arrest.  The probable cause determination was left to the jury (which concluded the police did not have probable cause).  The majority decided it was reversible error not to admit the full autopsy report, including the redacted conclusion that the “manner of death” had been “homicide (parental neglect).”  The dissent vehemently argued that the arresting officer had enough information, both from the autopsy report and his investigation, to conclude that the baby had been adequately fed and that, therefore, the jury’s finding the officer did not have probable cause to arrest was supported by the evidence. The concurring decision vehemently disagreed with the dissent, arguing that the arresting officer had probable cause as a matter of law:

From the concurrence:

“Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer warrant a prudent person in believing that the offense has been committed” … . “The evidence necessary to establish probable cause to justify an arrest need not be sufficient to warrant a conviction” … . And, as previously discussed, conflicting evidence as to guilt or innocence, and discrepancies in the case being built against the arrested person, while relevant to the prosecution’s ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, are not relevant to the determination of whether there was probable cause for an arrest … . Further, “when the facts and circumstances are undisputed, when only one inference [concerning probable cause] can reasonably be drawn therefrom and when there is no problem as to credibility . . . , the issue as to whether they amount to probable cause is a question of law” … . Since there is no dispute about either (1) plaintiff’s status as the infant’s sole custodian, (2) the contents of the autopsy report, or (3) the detective’s reliance upon the autopsy report in making the arrest and initiating the subsequently aborted prosecution, probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution existed as a matter of law. It follows that this case should not have been submitted to the jury and that the City’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted. * * *

From the dissent:

The evidence demonstrated that notwithstanding the conclusion in the autopsy report that the child died of malnutrition, the detective testified that two medical professionals who viewed the child’s body saw no apparent signs of neglect or abuse, found food in the child’s stomach, and concluded that she appeared to be well fed. Thus, there was no indication that plaintiff had either intentionally, recklessly or negligently starved the infant. The jury reasonably could have found that, at the time of arrest, there was no basis for a prudent person to believe that an offense had been committed. That is, that the mother did not act recklessly or negligently in feeding the child and/or not realizing that the child was malnourished, or did not in fact commit any offense whatsoever. * * * … [T]he contents of the report along with the other evidence did not provide probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that “it was reasonable, as a matter of law,” for the detective to discredit plaintiff’s account. Cheeks v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08764, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

Court’s Failure to Inquire About a Juror’s Sleeping During Deliberations Required Reversal

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial judge did not conduct a “probing inquiry” after being informed by jurors that a juror was sleeping during the deliberations:

The court should have conducted a “probing and tactful inquiry” … into whether, and to what extent, the juror had been sleeping, in order to determine whether this behavior rendered him grossly unqualified … . The court’s observation of jury demeanor during the supplemental instruction was not enough to resolve the issue of what was going on in the jury room, and this was not a case where reliance on a general instruction was an appropriate exercise of discretion … . Without any inquiry of the allegedly sleeping juror, or of any other juror, it is impossible to know whether the juror was innocuously dozing off from time to time, or whether he slept through so much of the deliberations that he could be deemed absent, such that the verdict was reached by a jury of 11 persons. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse. People v Franqui, 2014 NY Slip Op 08736, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

, ,

Landlord Properly Granted Summary Judgment in Action Stemming from an Assault on Landlord’s Premises—Plaintiff Unable to Raise a Question of Fact Whether the Assailants Were Intruders, as Opposed to Tenants or Invitees

The First Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to the landlord in an action based upon an attack upon plaintiff on the landlord’s premises.  Plaintiff was not able to raise a question of fact about whether the assailants were intruders, as opposed to tenants or invitees:

A landlord has a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from a third party’s foreseeable criminal conduct … . In order to recover damages, a tenant must establish that the landlord’s negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the injury … . Where a plaintiff alleges that a criminal attack in a building was proximately caused by a landlord’s failure to provide adequate security, “[the] plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” (id. at 551). “To defeat a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff need not conclusively establish that the assailants were intruders, but must raise triable issues of fact as to whether it was more likely than not that the assailants were intruders who gained access to the premises through the negligently-maintained entrance” … . Applying these principles, no triable issue of fact exists here because there is no evidence from which a jury could conclude, without pure speculation, that the assailants were intruders, as opposed to tenants or invitees. Hierro v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op -8734, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Court Must Consider Whether Both Parties, Not Only the Bank, Have Negotiated in Good Faith in the Mandatory Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conferences (Re: Possible Modification of the Terms of a Mortgage Subject to Foreclosure)—Under the Totality of the Circumstances, Supreme Court’s Finding that the Bank Did Not Negotiate in Good Faith Was Not Supported

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, determined that Supreme Court should have considered the defendant’s actions in deciding whether the parties had negotiated in good faith during the pre-foreclosure settlement conferences mandated by CPLR 3408 (a) [Subprime Residential Loan and Foreclosure Laws].  The conferences are required to ascertain whether a modification of the terms of a mortgage otherwise subject to foreclosure can be reached in a settlement. Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff bank did not negotiate in good faith was not warranted, in large part, because Supreme Court did not take into account the inaccurate and inconsistent information provided by the defendant during the conferences:

CPLR 3408 was enacted in 2008, as part of the omnibus “Subprime Residential Loan and Foreclosure Laws” (L 2008, ch 472, effective August 5, 2008), remedial legislation intended to assist homeowners at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure due to the subprime credit crisis (See Sponsor’s Mem., Bill Jacket (L 2008, ch 472). As part of the protections afforded to homeowners by the legislation, CPLR 3408 requires that conferences be conducted in residential foreclosure actions “for the purpose of holding settlement discussions pertaining to the relative rights and obligations of the parties under the mortgage loan documents, including, but not limited to determining whether the parties can reach a mutually agreeable resolution to help the defendant avoid losing his or her home, and evaluating the potential for a resolution in which payment schedules or amounts may be modified or other workout options may be agreed to, and for whatever other purposes the court deems appropriate” (CPLR 3408[a]).

These mandatory settlement conferences are intended to “provide an opportunity for borrowers and lenders to try to reach a solution that avoids foreclosure” (see Letter of Sen Farley, Bill Jacket, L 2008, ch 472 at 6).

CPLR 3408(f), added in 2009 as part of legislation designed to provide broader protection for homeowners (L 2009, ch 507 effective February 13, 2010), states that “[b]oth the plaintiff and defendant shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible.” “The purpose of the good faith requirement is to ensure that both plaintiff and defendant are prepared to participate in a meaningful effort at the settlement conference to reach resolution” (2009 Mem of Governor’s Program Bill, Bill Jacket, L 2009, ch 507 at 11). The language of the statute and legislative history confirm that the obligation to negotiate in good faith is intended to be a two way street, imposing reciprocal obligations on both the lender and the borrower to cooperate with the other to enable achievement of a reasonable resolution … . Towards this end, 22 NYCRR 202.12-a(c)(4) directs the court to “ensure that each party fulfills its obligation to negotiate in good faith.”

The term “good faith” is not defined in the statute. However, this Court has held that compliance with the good faith requirement of CPLR 3408 is not established by merely proving the absence of fraud or malice on the part of the lender and that “[a]ny determination of good faith must be based on the totality of the circumstances,” taking into account that CPLR 3408 is a remedial statute … .

“While the aspirational goal of CPLR 3408 negotiations is that the parties reach a mutually agreeable resolution to help the defendant avoid losing his or her home’ (CPLR 3408[a]), the statute requires only that the parties enter into and conduct negotiations in good faith … . …[T]his Court [has] noted that “there are situations in which the statutory goal is simply not financially feasible for either party” and that “the mere fact that plaintiff refused to consider a reduction in principal or interest rate does not establish that it was not negotiating in good faith. Nothing in CPLR 3408 requires plaintiff to make the exact offer desired by [the] defendant[ ] [mortgagors], and the plaintiff’s failure to make that offer cannot be interpreted as a lack of good faith” … . * * *

…[W]e find that [defendant] has not established that, under the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff failed to engage in a meaningful effort at reaching a solution during the settlement conferences. Although plaintiff presented [defendant] with repeated requests for documentation and, at times, failed to timely comply with deadlines issued by the court, the record establishes that [defendant] created a moving target for plaintiff by repeatedly changing her alleged sources of income in her loan modification applications, and failing to disclose substantial and material liens encumbering the property. Citibank NA v Barclay, 2014 NY Slip Op 08757, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Statutory Privilege Afforded Emergency Vehicles (Imposing a “Reckless Disregard” Standard for Accident-LiabilIty) Is Not Dependent Upon Whether the Emergency Lights and Siren Were Activated

The First Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the city in a case stemming from a collision with a police car.  The evidence that the police car, which was “performing an emergency operation,” stopped at a stop sign before proceeding into the intersection where it was struck by the taxi in which plaintiff was a passenger was sufficient to demonstrate the police officer did not act recklessly.  It did not matter whether the emergency lights and siren were activated:

As the police vehicle was an authorized emergency vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101), performing an emergency operation by “pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b), the operator was authorized to proceed through the red light, once it slowed down “as may be necessary for safe operation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [a],[b][2]). Thus, in order to hold the municipal defendants liable, plaintiff must demonstrate that the officer driving the police vehicle acted with “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” which requires a showing that he “has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … .

Here, the officer’s uncontroverted testimony was that he came to a complete stop prior to entering the intersection. That he looked in the direction of, but did not see, the approaching taxi did not render his conduct reckless … . That issues of fact exist as to whether the police lights were on (which plaintiff saw prior to the accident, but the taxi driver testified he did not), or whether the siren was activated, is not material, as a police vehicle performing an emergency operation is not required to activate either of these devices, in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of passing through a red light (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[c]). Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the officer driving the police vehicle lawfully exercised the privilege, and appellants have produced no evidence of any other facts or circumstances which would raise a triable issue as to any reckless conduct by the officer.  Flynn v Sambuca Taxi LLC, 2014 NY Slip OP 08723, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

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