You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Cross-Examination About the Omission of Exculpatory Information from a Statement Made to Police Is Not the Same as Cross-Examination About the Exercise of the Right to Remain Silent

The First Department noted that defendant was properly cross-examined about the omission of exculpatory information provided in his direct testimony from the statement he had given to police. “After receiving Miranda warnings, and agreeing to provide a statement to the police, defendant made statements that omitted significant exculpatory matter that he included in his trial testimony. Under the circumstances, this was an unnatural omission, and a permissible basis for impeachment…”.  People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 03469, 1st Dept, 4-28-15

 

, ,

All Causes of Action Against a Provider of Clinical Laboratory Services, Which Were Based Upon the Alleged Misreading of a Tissue Sample, Governed by the 2 1/2-Year Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations

The First Department determined that all the causes of action against Quest, a clinical laboratory which analyzed a Pap smear tissue sample, were subject to the two-and-one-half-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions (as opposed to the three-year statute for negligence actions generally).  The complaint alleged Quest negligently misread the tissue sample.  In addition, the complaint alleged regulatory infractions, i.e., no plan for error reduction and failure to adequately implement, maintain or supervise quality assurance.  The court explained the relevant law:

It is settled that a negligent act or omission “that constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician constitutes malpractice” … . Laboratory services, such as Quest’s, performed at the direction of a physician are an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment … . Accordingly, a claim stemming from the rendition of such services is a medical malpractice claim … .

Plaintiffs however make additional claims that Quest failed to properly employ a plan for error reduction and failed to adequately implement, maintain or supervise quality assurance. These claims cannot be distinguished from allegations of medical malpractice. In applying the statute of limitations, courts must look to the reality or essence of a claim rather than its form … . The critical factor in distinguishing whether conduct may be deemed malpractice or ordinary negligence is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant allegedly breached … . The additional claims put forth in this case would not be actionable in the absence of the misreading of the tissue sample, the basis of the malpractice claim. All of the regulatory infractions alleged by plaintiffs bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment … . Annunziata v Quest Diagnostics Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03466, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

,

The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed

The First Department determined the police officer’s observations of the defendant’s actions (head turning both ways) in a “high narcotics area” justified his approach of the defendant, who was sitting in a car (founded suspicion/common-law right of inquiry).  Asking the defendant what was in his pocket after the defendant pulled his hand from his jacket was also justified. However, the officer’s “tapping” of an object in defendant’s pocket was not justified.  The intrusion (tapping the pocket) and the subsequent frisk of the defendant were not supported by reasonable suspicion of a crime or by the need to ensure the officer’s safety. The arrest was invalid and the motion to suppress all seized items, as well as the statements made by the defendant, should have been granted:

Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police at approximately 9 p.m. in a “high narcotics area.” As an officer approached the passenger side of the vehicle, he noticed defendant’s “head turning both ways and a lot of . . . movement coming from the area of the front passenger seat.” As he reached the passenger side window, he saw defendant, who appeared nervous, “pulling his hand from his jacket, from the fold of his jacket.” When the officer asked defendant what he “put in [his] jacket,” defendant “mumbled something unintelligible or really didn’t say much.” The officer then reached into the car, “tapped” the pocket of defendant’s jacket with the flashlight he was holding, and felt “something hard.”

The officer’s observations, up until the time he arrived at the passenger window, gave rise to founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, and so justified his question regarding what defendant had put in his pocket, which constituted a common-law inquiry … . However, we find that the physical intrusion of tapping defendant’s pocket was unauthorized. The circumstances did not give rise to the reasonable suspicion required to authorize a frisk. Nor was the officer’s conduct justifiable as a “minimal self-protective measure”…, which is permissible in furtherance of the common-law right of inquiry, where sufficient concerns for personal safety are present … . The circumstances, viewed as a whole, did not suggest any need for the officer to take such a precaution. At the time of the officer’s intrusion, defendant was not reaching for an area where a weapon might be located, there was no suggestion that a weapon was present or that violence was imminent, and there was no other basis for a self-protective intrusion.

Because the ensuing frisk outside the car, and the resulting arrest, depended on the initial improper intrusion, they were invalid as well. In any event, we also find that the search of the plastic bag following defendant’s arrest was not supported by exigent circumstances … . People v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 03458, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

, ,

Special Proceedings, Here a Motion to File a Late Notice of Claim, Are Subject to the Same Standards and Rules as Motions for Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Should Not Have Considered New Evidence Presented for the First Time in Reply Papers

In finding that plaintiff’s motion to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted (inadequate excuse for delay, misrepresentations made to the court), the First Department explained that Supreme Court should not have considered matters raised for the first time in petitioner’s reply papers.  The court noted that special proceedings are subject to the same standards and rules as those applied to summary judgment motions:

As a matter of procedure, the motion court erred in entertaining arguments advanced for the first time in petitioners’ reply papers and in accepting their offer of new proof, unnecessarily protracting summary proceedings. As succinctly stated by this Court:

“It is settled that a special proceeding is subject to the same standards and rules of decision as apply on a motion for summary judgment, requiring the court to decide the matter upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised'” … .

We further held that where, as here, a petition is unsupported by sufficient evidentiary proof, the petitioning party will not be entitled to remedy those deficiencies …, thereby extending a procedure providing for summary disposition through “unnecessary and unauthorized elaboration” … . We have consistently stated that in proceedings subject to summary determination, no consideration is to be accorded to novel arguments raised in reply papers … . That this Court may, in the exercise of discretion, entertain such arguments upon review … does not endorse the unnecessary extension of summary proceedings. Under these circumstances, it was improvident to excuse petitioners’ deceit and grant their application to serve a late notice of claim. Matter of Gonzalez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03467, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

,

Statutory Presumption of Possession of Weapons Recovered from Vehicle Confers on Vehicle-Occupants Automatic Standing to Move to Suppress

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

 

, ,

Allowing Testimony that Defendant’s Name Was Mentioned in an Out-of-Court Conversation About the Underlying Assault Was (Harmless) Error/The Confrontation Clause Was Not Implicated Because the Hearsay Was Not Testimonial/Admission of the Hearsay Was Not Justified as “Completing the Narrative” or “Preventing Jury Confusion”

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

 

Evidence Which Is “Material and Necessary” in the Context of Discovery Is Much Broader in Scope than Evidence Which Is Admissible at Trial

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

 

,

Questions of Fact Remained About Whether the Seller Was “Ready, Willing and Able to Close” and Whether the Seller Had Breached the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Supreme Court Should Not Have Granted Summary Judgment to Seller

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

 

Although the Agreements at Issue Set Up an Investment Fund (Targeting Brazil) in the Cayman Islands, the Fact that the Agreements Were Negotiated, Drafted and Executed in New York Conferred Personal Jurisdiction Over the Defendant Fund

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

CIVIL PROCEDURE A Stay Which Was to Last “45 Days from the Service” of an Order Never Expired Because the Order Was Never Served/Argument that the Stay Never Started Because the Order Was Not Served Rejected

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

 

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