You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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

 

, , , ,

There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, determined that the “common-interest privilege” may apply to documents created during merger negotiations among two corporations and their counsel.  The court found there is no requirement that litigation be imminent for the application of the privilege.  The underlying lawsuit was brought by a financial-guaranty insurer (Ambac) which alleged it was fraudulently induced by Countrywide to insure residential mortgage backed securities. Ambac sought discovery of documents relating to a merger between Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation (the subject of secondary claims by Ambac) which, it was alleged, would demonstrate Bank of America Corporation was on notice about Countrywide's alleged fraud. The First Department held that the merger-related documents could be protected by the common-interest privilege and sent the matter back to the motion court to determine whether particular documents are protected:

As noted above, the common-interest privilege is an exception to the rule that the presence of a third party at a communication between counsel and client will render the communication non-confidential … . The doctrine, a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege, requires that: (1) the communication qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege, and (2) the communication be made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties … . This Court has never squarely decided whether there is a third requirement: that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. We answer that question today in the negative. Ambac Assur Corp v Countrywide Home Loans Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08510, 1st Dept 12-4-14

 

,

Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a dissent, determined that the fact that a co-defendant (Stephens) had been represented by a New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) attorney did not create a conflict requiring the disqualification of defendant's trial attorney (Fisher), who also worked for the NYCDS.  The court noted that Fisher was not privy to any confidences of Stephens (who had pled out shortly after arraignment) and there was little danger attorneys within a large institution like the NYCDS would share their clients' confidential information.  Therefore Fisher could effectively cross-examine Stephens should he be called to testify (the People did not intend to call Stephens). The defendant did not want Fisher disqualified and was willing to waive any conflict:

As both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have explained, the Sixth Amendment encompasses a right to select and be represented by one's preferred counsel. However, that right is not absolute …, and it must be balanced with the right to effective assistance of counsel … . Thus, trial courts are given “substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interests not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses” … . …

Here … defendant not only challenges the trial court's refusal to accept his waiver of the potential conflict of interest, but also questions whether there was even a potential conflict of interest, in the first instance, where Fisher, who is a staff attorney at an institutional defense organization, never personally represented Stephens. It is crucial to recognize that here, unlike in other right to counsel cases, the proper initial inquiry is not whether defendant's waiver should have been accepted, but whether there was even a conflict or potential conflict of interest to waive in the first place. The court need only reach the issue of whether the waiver was properly accepted or denied after it has been established that there was a conflict or potential conflict of interest to waive. I find that on this record, no conflict or potential conflict of interest existed. * * *

Here, defendant and Stephens were arrested in connection with the same incident, but Stephens's case was already concluded by the time of Fisher's disqualification and, again, there was no evidence or suggestion that information concerning Stephens was ever shared with Fisher. Indeed, Fisher acknowledged that he would be barred from viewing his office's file on Stephens or using the address on file to try to locate Stephens; similarly no other attorney would have had access to NYCDS's file either. Thus … it cannot be said that the prior representation of Stephens by the same public defense organization created a potential conflict of interest. Although this Court is aware that the trial court's “discretion is especially broad” when balancing the right to counsel of a criminal defendant's choosing and the right to effective assistance of counsel free of conflicts … , under the specific circumstances here, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying defendant's counsel. People v Watson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08383, 1st Dept 12-2-14


 

,

Criteria for an “Open and Obvious” Defense and an “Intervening or Superseding Cause” Defense Described—Effect of Plaintiff’s Intoxication and Lack of Memory Re: the Accident Discussed

The First Department determined a lawsuit stemming from plaintiff's fall from a roof into an unprotected airshaft could go forward.  The roof was accessed through an apartment window.  The Court of Appeals had reversed the First Department's dismissal of the action (on the ground the accident was not foreseeable).  On remand, the First Department addressed the defendant's arguments that the condition was open and obvious, that plaintiff's climbing onto the roof while intoxicated was the intervening, superseding or sole proximate cause of the accident, and the effect of the facts that no one witnessed the accident and plaintiff has no memory of it:

To establish an open and obvious condition, a defendant must prove that the hazard “could not reasonably be overlooked by anyone in the area whose eyes were open” … . However, “even visible hazards do not necessarily qualify as open and obvious” because the “nature or location of some hazards, while they are technically visible, make them likely to be overlooked” … . The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the condition that caused the plaintiff to sustain injury was readily observable by the plaintiff employing the reasonable use of his senses … . Furthermore, “whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that a triable issue of fact exists whether the unguarded opening from the setback roof to the air shaft was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous. * * *

“An intervening act will be deemed a superseding cause and will serve to relieve defendant of liability when the act is of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuates defendant's negligence from the ultimate injury that responsibility for the injury may not be reasonably attributed to the defendant” … . “[L]iability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence” … . To establish that a plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his or her injuries, a defendant must show that the plaintiff engaged in reckless, unforeseeable or extraordinary conduct, i.e. that the plaintiff recognized the danger and chose to disregard it … .

On the record before us, defendants have not established as a matter of law that plaintiff's act of walking out onto the setback roof was a superseding or intervening cause that severed the causal connection between his injuries and any negligence on their part. Plaintiff had never been to the building before the night in question, and defendants did not establish that plaintiff either knew, or should have known, that his conduct was dangerous, notwithstanding that he apparently fell during his second trip onto the setback roof. The fact that plaintiff was legally intoxicated does not alone render his actions a superseding cause … .

Defendants argue that plaintiff cannot make out a case of proximate cause because the accident was unwitnessed, and plaintiff does not recall what happened, and thus there can be no showing that a parapet or railing would have prevented the accident. However, plaintiff need not exclude every possible cause of his fall other than the premises defects alleged … . Regardless of whether plaintiff slipped, tripped, or fell, an issue of fact exists whether his fall down into the air shaft was, at least in part, attributable to the fact that the setback roof was open to the unguarded shaft. Powers v 31 E 31 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08382, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

When a Party Does Not Object to Errors in a Verdict Sheet, the Jury Charge Becomes the Law Applicable to the Case—Only “Fundamental” Errors Will Be Reviewed on Appeal (No Fundamental Error Here)—“Fundamental Error” In this Context Briefly Defined

The First Department explained its review powers with respect to errors in a verdict sheet that were not preserved by objection:

The record reflects that the jury charge correctly advised that loss of enjoyment of life was a component of pain and suffering … . Defendant argues that the verdict sheet was inconsistent with this instruction. However, defendant concedes that it failed to object to the verdict sheet. Thus, defendant failed to preserve the issue of the error in the verdict sheet for review by this Court … .

Where a party fails to object to errors in a verdict sheet, the charge becomes the law applicable to the determination of the case, and on appeal, this Court will review only if the error was “fundamental” … . We find that the alleged conflict between the jury charge and the verdict sheet was not fundamental since it did not confuse or create doubt as to the principle of law to be applied, or improperly shift fault, such that the “jury was prevented from fairly considering the issues at trial” … . Grace v NYC Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 08362, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

,

Failure to Timely Raise a Late-Notice Defense to Coverage May Constitute a Waiver of the Defense

The First Department determined there existed a triable issue of fact whether the insurer of a gas plant operated by Long Island Light Company (LILCO) waived a late-notice-based disclaimer of coverage.  Under the common law, the failure to assert a known policy defense may constitute a waiver:

Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right and must be predicated upon knowledge of the facts upon which the existence of the right depends … . The failure to assert a known policy defense may constitute a waiver … . “Whether an insurer has waived the defense of late notice is ordinarily a question of fact, which is proved by evidence that the insurer intended to abandon that defense” … .

The evidence supports an inference that defendants knew of facts supporting a late notice defense long before disclaiming coverage in their answers. Long Is Light Co v American Re-Insurance Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08363, 1st Dept 12-2-14


 

,

Pleading Requirements for Piercing the Corporate Veil Described in Some Detail

The First Department determined questions of fact concerning whether the corporate veil should be pierced (alter-ego theory) had been raised.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

In order to state a claim for alter-ego liability plaintiff is generally required to allege “complete domination of the corporation [here PFLLC] in respect to the transaction attacked” and “that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury” … . Because a decision to pierce the corporate veil in any given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, there are no definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when this power may be exercised … .

If plaintiff prevails in proving that PFLLC owes it a debt …, the further allegations in the complaint are sufficiently pleaded to support plaintiff's claim that defendant is an alter-ego of PFLLC. The complaint asserts that with respect to the transaction at issue, defendant dominated and controlled the negotiations on behalf of PFLLC and actually provided the erroneous information which persuaded plaintiff to enter into the agreement. The allegations … sufficiently frame factual issues about whether defendant, as the parent company of PFLLC, commingled funds and disregarded corporate formalities … .

In addition, the allegations that defendant, through its domination of PFLLC, misrepresented the value of the assets sold and then caused PFLLC to become judgment proof, are also sufficient to support claims that defendant perpetrated a wrong or injustice against plaintiff, thus warranting intervention by a court of equity … . Wrongdoing in this context does not necessarily require allegations of actual fraud. While fraud certainly satisfies the wrongdoing requirement, other claims of inequity or malfeasance will also suffice … . Allegations that corporate funds were purposefully diverted to make it judgment proof or that a corporation was dissolved without making appropriate reserves for contingent liabilities are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of wrongdoing which is necessary to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory … . Baby Phat Holding Co LLC v Kellwood Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08364, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

,

Release Did Not Exclude Liability for Personal Trainer’s Negligence

The First Department determined that the wording of a release for a personal training program did not express an unequivocal intent to limit liability for negligence.  The plaintiff alleged that the trainer negligently instructed him to lift an excessive amount of weight:

Prior to beginning training at defendant’s facility, plaintiff executed a release wherein he acknowledged that there were “inherent risks in participating in a program of strenuous exercise” and released defendant from “all claims . . . which

I . . . . may have against [defendant] . . . for all injuries . . . which may occur in connection with my participation in the program.” It is undisputed that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not bar enforcement of this release as defendant’s facility is an instructional, and not a recreational, one. However, the language of the release does not reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to limit liability for negligence … . While the release warned of the risks inherent in undergoing a strenuous exercise program, it does not “express[] any intention to exempt . . . defendant from liability for injury . . . which may result from [its] failure to use due care . . . in [its] training methods” … . …[T]he release does not purport to release defendant from all personal injury claims, “whether or not based on the acts or omissions of [defendant],” or contain other language conveying a similar import … .  Kim v Harry Hanson Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08229, 1st Dept 11-25-14

 

,

SORA Court Must Designate a “Sexually Violent Offender” a Level One Sex Offender

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a dissent, determined that the SORA court does not have the discretion to designate a “sexually violent offender” as anything other than a Level One sex offender.  Here the defendant was convicted of sexual battery in North Carolina.  The North Carolina offense was found to be the equivalent of New York’s Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a “sexually violent offense” under Correction Law 168-a (3) (a):

“While [the] Court is directed to apply SORA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines . . ., the statutory definition of sexually violent offender, namely, a sex offender convicted of one of several enumerated sexually violent offenses, does not allow for a discretionary determination” … . Thus, although the “level suggested by the RAI [risk assessment instrument] is merely presumptive and a SORA court possesses the discretion to impose a lower or higher risk level if it concludes that the factors in the RAI do not result in an appropriate designation” …, the Court of Appeals has observed that “since 2002, SORA has compelled a defendant convicted of a sexually violent offense’ to register at least annually for life (Correction Law § 168-h [2]; see Correction Law § 168-a [3][a][7]; [b]; L 2002, ch 11, § 13). People v Bullock, 2014 NY Slip Op 08265, 1st Dept 11-25-14

 

, ,

Heightened Pleading Requirements for Fraud Not Met

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements:

Plaintiff has not satisfied the heightened pleading standard for a fraud claim under CPLR § 3016(b) because it failed to identify any of the allegedly, false representations that [defendant] made with the then present intent to induce plaintiff’s investment in the project. Moreover, the fraudulent inducement claim duplicates the breach of contract claim because plaintiff has not alleged any representation that is collateral to the contract … . “A fraud-based claim is duplicative of breach of a contract claim when the only fraud alleged is that the defendant was not sincere when it promised to perform under the contract.” MMCT LLC v JTR Coll Point LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08103, 1st Dept 11-20-14

 

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