You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

First Degree Burglary Conviction Upheld Even though the Residential Portion of the Building Was Not Accessible from the Basement of the First-Floor Store Where the Defendant Entered the Building

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant was properly convicted of first degree burglary even though the residential portion of the building could not be accessed from the the basement of the first-floor store, where defendant entered the building.  The majority found that the exception fashioned for “large” buildings where the residents could not be aware of the defendant’s presence in the non-residential portion of the building did not apply:

In McCray, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the rule, established in Quinn v People (71 NY 561 [1878]), that “if a building contains a dwelling, a burglary committed in any part of that building is the burglary of a dwelling; but an exception exists where the building is large and the crime is committed in a place so remote and inaccessible from the living quarters that the special dangers inherent in the burglary of a dwelling do not exist” (McCray, 23 NY3d at 624). Although the inaccessibility requirement appears to have been met, the other condition for application of the exception  – namely, that the building in question be “large” – has not.

Stating that the decision in McCray did not turn on the size of the building, and that the critical factor is whether there is close contiguity between the residential and nonresidential elements of the building such that the residents of the building would be aware of the burglar’s presence, the dissent would reverse the conviction for second-degree burglary because the basement was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above. However, in Quinn, which is the foundation on which McCray stands, there also was no “internal communication” between the shop that was broken into and the living quarters above, and a person had to go into the yard and then up stairs to get from one to another (Quinn at 565). Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of first-degree burglary because the shop “was within the same four outer walls, and under the same roof” (id.). The Court reasoned that “the essence of the crime of burglary at common law is the midnight terror excited, and the liability created by it of danger to human life, growing out of the attempt to defend property from depredation. It is plain that both of these may arise, when the place entered is in close contiguity with the place of the owner’s repose, though the former has no relation to the latter by reason of domestic use or adaptation” (id. at 567). People v Joseph, 2015 NY Slip Op 00299, 1st Dept 1-13-15

 

,

Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure

The First Department determined a deed constituted a mortgage pursuant to Real Property Law 320, and was not a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.”  Therefore the deed recorded by the defendants did not transfer ownership to them and defendants must foreclose on the mortgage to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest:

Real Property Law § 320 codifies the well-settled common law principle “that the giving of a deed to secure a debt, in whatever form and however structured, creates nothing more than a mortgage” … . The statute does not require a conclusive showing that the transfer was intended as security; rather, it is sufficient that the conveyance appears to be intended only as “a security in the nature of a mortgage” … .

Therefore, as the motion court properly found, “The holder of a deed given as security must proceed in the same manner as any other mortgagee — by foreclosure and sale — to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest” … . This conclusion holds true because the mortgagor has the right of redemption, and that right cannot be waived or abandoned by any stipulation of the parties, even if the waiver is embodied in the mortgage … . Patmos Fifth Real Estate Inc v Mazl Bldg LLC, 2015 NY Slip OP 00278, 1st Dept 1-8-15

 

, ,

Tenant Entitled to Attorney’s Fees After Successfully Defending Landlord’s Holdover Action—Discretion to Deny Attorney’s Fees Should Be Used Sparingly Because of the Purpose of the Controlling Statute

The First Department reversed the Appellate Term finding that a tenant who successfully defended a holdover action brought by the landlord was entitled to attorney’s fees. After several lease renewals at a “preferential” rate, the landlord required that a renewal be at the “legal” rate (several thousand dollars higher than the preferential rate) and started a holdover proceeding when the tenant refused to pay the “legal” rate.  Appellate Term decided the tenant was not entitled to attorney’s fees because the landlord had a “colorable claim” that it was entitled to charge the “legal” rate.  The First Department explained that whether the landlord had a “colorable claim” was not the correct standard to apply:

Under Real Property Law § 234, when a residential lease provides for a landlord’s recovery of attorneys’ fees resulting from a tenant’s failure to perform a lease covenant, a reciprocal covenant is implied requiring the landlord to pay the tenant’s attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of, inter alia, the tenant’s successful defense of an action or summary proceeding commenced by the landlord arising out of the lease … . To support an award of attorneys’ fees, the tenant must be the prevailing party, that is, the result must be substantially favorable to the tenant … .

Here, the terms of the parties’ lease plainly triggers the reciprocal covenant mandated by Real Property Law § 234, and the tenant is entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees incurred in his successful defense of the holdover proceeding. Contrary to the landlord’s assertion, the tenant was the prevailing party regardless of whether the holdover proceeding was formally dismissed, since a tenant is entitled to recover fees “when the ultimate outcome is in his favor, whether or not such outcome is on the merits” … .

Despite the tenant’s status as the prevailing party, the Appellate Term nevertheless denied the fee request because, in its view, the landlord’s possessory claim was “of colorable merit” … . This was an improper standard. “The overriding purpose of [Real Property Law § 234] is to provide a level playing field between landlords and tenants, creating a mutual obligation that provides an incentive to resolve disputes quickly and without undue expense” … . Because it is a remedial statute, Real Property Law § 234 “should be accorded its broadest protective meaning consistent with legislative intent” … . The Appellate Term’s conclusion that a tenant’s claim to reciprocal attorneys’ fees can be denied whenever a landlord asserts a colorable claim undermines the salutary purpose of Real Property Law § 234. A “colorable claim” standard would result in the gutting of the protections afforded by the statute because it would allow courts to deny fees whenever the landlord can make a nonfrivolous legal argument in support of its position.

Although courts have some discretion to deny attorneys’ fees sought under Real Property Law § 234, such discretion should be exercised sparingly … . Thus, a request for attorneys’ fees should be denied only where a fee award would be manifestly unfair or where the successful party engaged in bad faith … .

Here, the landlord has made no showing of any bad faith on the tenant’s part. Matter of 251 CPW Hous LLC v Pastreich, 2015 NY Slip Op 00208, 1st Dept 1-6-15

 

,

Once the Jury Found Defendant’s Negligence Was Not a Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Injuries, the Jury Should Not Have Continued to Deliberate, Make Findings of Comparative Negligence and Apportion Damages—Jury’s Continued Deliberations Were Superfluous—New Trial Not Necessary

The First Department determined a new trial was not necessary where the jury went on to assess comparative fault and damages after finding defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.  The jury should have stopped deliberating at that point:

The verdict sheet in this personal injury action instructed the jurors to determine (1) whether defendant was negligent, and (2) if so, whether defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. The jurors found that defendant was negligent, but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury. The verdict sheet instructed that if the jurors answered the second question in the negative, they should cease deliberations and report their verdict. The jurors, however, continued deliberating and determined that plaintiff was also negligent; that plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing his own injury; that plaintiff was 95% at fault, and defendant was 5% at fault; and that plaintiff was entitled to $200,000 in damages.

This case is controlled by Pavlou v City of New York (21 AD3d 74 [1st Dept 2005], affd 8 NY3d 961 [2007]), a Labor Law case in which the plaintiff was injured due to a damaged crane hoist. In Pavlou, the jurors determined that the City (the owner of the construction site) was negligent under the Industrial Code, but that its negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury. The jury also found that the crane manufacturer was not negligent (id. at 75). The verdict sheet instructed that upon making these findings, the jurors were to stop deliberations. The Pavlou jury, however, went on to find the third-party defendant-employer negligent for operating a damaged crane; the jury then apportioned the employer's degree of fault and fixed the amount of damages (id. at 81). This Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial as against the City, stating, “[T]he jury should not have apportioned [the employer's] liability . . . or fixed the amount of damages, once it determined that the violation of the Industrial Code was not a proximate cause and that the crane manufacturer was not negligent. The fact that the jury attempted such an award was a superfluous act that does not require a new trial” (id. at 76). The Court of Appeals affirmed (8 NY3d 961 [2007]).

The same reasoning as in Pavlou applies here. Once the jurors determined that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor or proximate cause (see PJI 2:70, Proximate Cause — In General; see also PJI 2:36) of plaintiff's injuries, they should not have attempted to assess plaintiff's own negligence and to fix damages. That they did so was a superfluous act that [*2]does not require a new trial. Alcantara v Knight, 2014 NY Slip OP 09030, 1st Dept 12-30-14


Unsworn Juror Properly Dismissed Based Upon the “Two-Hour-Trial-Delay” Rule

The First Department determined the dismissal of a juror based on transportation problems which would delay the trial more than two hours was proper.  Apparently none of the jurors had been sworn at the time of the dismissal. Because the standards for dismissing a juror are higher for sworn, as opposed to unsworn, jurors, the fact that the juror was unsworn was of no consequence:

…[D]efendant had no objection to a delay in swearing the jurors after the completion of jury selection, and thus effectively “agreed to create a category of jurors, i.e., selected but unsworn jurors, about which the Criminal Procedure Law is silent as to criteria for discharge” … . The record reveals that the court merely used CPL 270.35 as a guideline in deciding whether to delay the trial by waiting for the juror. In any event, “[t]he power to excuse an unsworn juror is much broader than the statutorily limited power to discharge a sworn juror . . . .” … . Therefore, if the criteria set forth in CPL 270.35 for the dismissal of a sworn juror have been met, then, a fortiori, the same considerations would warrant dismissal of a selected but unsworn juror … .

“The Court of Appeals has held that the two-hour rule' gives the court broad discretion to discharge any juror whom it determines is not likely to appear within two hours” … . Using the two-hour rule as a guideline, it is clear that the court providently exercised its discretion in replacing the juror with an alternate … . People v Sanchez, 2014 NY Slip Op 09031, 1st Dept 12-30-14


, , , , ,

Survey Without Surveyor’s Affidavit Insufficient to Support Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion/Inadmissible Evidence (Survey) May Be Considered to Defeat Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Nuisance Cause of Action Dismissed Because Duplicative of Negligence Cause of Action

In an action stemming from the collapse of a retaining wall between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties, the First Department noted that a survey map without an affidavit from the surveyor is insufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, but was sufficient to support the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The court also noted that where negligence and nuisance causes of action are duplicative, the nuisance action should be dismissed:

… [A] survey alone, without an accompanying affidavit from the surveyor, does not constitute competent evidence of the location of property lines and fences or retaining walls … . Plaintiff has therefore failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate entitlement to a declaratory judgment on its claim brought pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-305.1.1.

Defendant met its prima facie burden as cross movant by submission of the affidavit of a land surveyor who inspected and measured the property subsequent to the collapse of the retaining wall in June 2013, and concluded that no portion of the wall had been upon defendant’s property. That plaintiff’s two surveys indicate that the wall was “on [the] line” of both properties, is sufficient, however, to raise a question as to the location of the wall relative to the two properties; we have long held that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be considered to defeat an application for summary judgment … .

… [W]e find that the claim of negligence is expressed throughout plaintiff’s papers, and there is a question of fact as to whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, if the retaining wall is found to rest on both parties’ premises. The claim of nuisance, based on allegations that defendant’s ongoing refusal to participate in the repairs and maintenance of the retaining wall substantially interferes with plaintiff’s ability to use and enjoy its property, arises solely from plaintiff’s claim of negligence. Where nuisance and negligence elements are “so intertwined as to be practically inseparable,” a plaintiff may recover only once for the harm suffered … . Upon a search of the record, we conclude that the third cause of action, nuisance, should be dismissed as duplicative of the negligence cause of action, although this argument was not previously made or considered … . 70 Pinehurst Avenue LLC v RPN Mgt Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09029, 1st Dept 12-30-14

 

, ,

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

 

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