You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Cross-Examination of People’s Witness About Her Past Status as a Confidential Informant Properly Precluded—Status Ended a Year Before and Witness Had Legitimate Safety Concerns

The First Department determined the defense was properly precluded from cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses about her past status as a confidential informant:

The witness’s service as an informant had concluded a year before the instant crime and did not involve defendant, the People demonstrated that the witness had legitimate safety concerns regarding disclosure of her status, and there was nothing in the circumstances of the case to raise a suspicion that her past informant status contributed to her becoming a prosecution witness in this case. People v Lopez, 2014 NY Slip Op 08117, 1st Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Defendants Unable to Demonstrate that Plaintiff’s Alleged Breach of a Related Contract Relieved Defendants of the Obligation to Pay a Promissory Note—No Showing the Promissory Note and Oral Agreement Were “Intertwined”

The First Department determined the allegations that plaintiff’s breach of a related oral agreement relieved defendants of the obligation to pay a promissory note were insufficient to defeat summary judgment on the note:

” [T]he general rule is that the breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only unless it can be shown that the contract and the instrument are “intertwined” and that the defenses alleged to exist create material issues of triable fact'” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the alleged oral construction management agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with the promissory note … . Castle Restoration & Constr Inc v Castle Restoration LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07972, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

,

Cause of Action Against Landlord for Nuisance, Based Upon a Noisy Tenant, Does Not Lie Where the Landlord Did Not Create the Nuisance and the Landlord Has Surrendered Control of the Premises to the Tenant

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the landlord in an action alleging a tenant’s noise constituted a nuisance (because the papers submitted were inadequate), the First Department noted that a cause of action for nuisance does not lie against a landlord who did not create the nuisance and who has surrendered control of the premises to a tenant.  Clarke v 6485 & 6495 Broadway Apt Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07961, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid/The Way Defendant Was Holding a Cigarette Justified the Vehicle Stop/No Probable Cause for Warrantless Search of Trunk of Defendant’s Car

The First Department determined (1) the waiver of appeal, which included a signed written waiver, was not valid; (2) the stop of defendant’s vehicle, the removal of the occupants, and the search of the interior of the car was justified by the police officer’s belief defendant was smoking a marijuana cigarette held between his thumb and index finger and the observation of an empty glassine envelope; and (3) the warrantless search of the trunk where ecstasy was found was not justified by probable cause:

A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective unless it is apparent from the record that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily … . For a waiver to be effective, the record must demonstrate that the defendant has a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver …, including an understanding “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty … .

Here, the court never adequately explained the nature of the waiver, the rights the defendant would be waiving or that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the waiver was invalid and unenforceable … . The written waiver signed by defendant was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . In addition, the court’s statement that defendant was “going to be required” to waive his right to appeal could have misled him into believing that he had no choice but to do so … . * * *

…Officer Rivera, an experienced policeman who had participated in approximately 30 arrests involving marijuana, testified to the court’s satisfaction that, in his opinion and experience, the manner in which defendant was handling the cigarette indicated that it was a marijuana cigarette. “[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses” … . That Rivera was not “certain” that defendant was smoking marijuana is of no moment, since “[t]he standard for [a forcible stop is] merely reasonable suspicion, not absolute certainty or even probable cause” … .

Defendant effectively concedes that the police were entitled to search in the area of the car where Officer Rivera claims to have smelled marijuana, but not anywhere else, and certainly not in the trunk. This, he argues, is because any grounds the police may have had to believe that the trunk contained drugs were belied by the lack of evidence that they existed anywhere else in the car.

Indeed, there was scant evidence of drugs in the car. After approaching the car, Rivera never saw the marijuana cigarette that he claimed he saw when he drove past defendant’s car, and he was equivocal about whether he smelled burning or unburnt marijuana. Further, the glassine envelope that Officer Ali uncovered was empty, and it was not until later that day, after defendant and his companions were arrested, that Rivera concluded that it contained marijuana. Rivera also conceded that defendant did not appear to be under the influence.  * * * Accordingly, we find that the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk, and that the Ecstasy found there should have been suppressed.  People v Ramos, 2014 NY Slip Op 07931, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

,

Defendant’s Unsigned Deposition Transcript Admissible In Support of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Okay to Submit Deposition Excerpts As Long As They Are Not Misleading

The First Department noted that the fact that a deposition transcript submitted in support of a summary judgment motion was not signed did not render the transcript inadmissible and further noted that it is proper to submit excerpts from depositions provided they are not misleading.  The lawsuit alleged the defendant driver of a sanitation truck, Wygand, was negligent. Summary judgment was granted to the defendants:

There was no requirement that Wygand’s deposition transcript be signed by him in order to be admissible in support of the City defendants’ motion because Wygand accepted its accuracy by submitting it in support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . There was also nothing improper about submitting only excerpts of deposition transcripts in support of the motion, as long as they were not misleading. Castano v Wygand, 2014 NY Slip Op 07940, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

,

Matter First Raised In a Reply Affirmation Is Not Properly Before an Appellate Court

The First Department affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment noting that a matter raised for the first time in defendants’ reply affirmation is not properly before an appellate court.  Anderson v Pena, 2014 NY Slip Op 07948, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

Wooden Flooring With Gaps Between the Planks Constituted an Elevation-Related Hazard

The First Department noted that wooden planks with gaps between them high above the bottom of a shaft constituted and elevation-related hazard to which Labor Law 240 (1) applied “regardless of whether the flooring was permanent.”  Kircher v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07951, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

Owners’ Intent, at the Time Plaintiff Was Injured, to Use the Property As a Second Home Triggered the Homeowners’ Exemption to Labor Law Liability Notwithstanding that the Owners Never Occupied the Property and Started Leasing It Two Years After the Accident

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact about whether defendant-homeowners intended to use the renovated house as income property,  Therefore the homeowners’ exemption under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) precluded recovery for injuries suffered by the plaintiff during the renovation.  The homeowners did not direct or control plaintiff’s work. The accident occurred in 2005.  One of the owners, Parry, testified that they intended to use the place as a second home.  In 2007, having never occupied the house, the owners decided to lease the house and did so.  The court determined the owners’ intent at the time of the accident in 2005 controlled:

The owners made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to the homeowner’s exemption by demonstrating that their premises consist of a one-family dwelling and that they did not direct or control plaintiff’s work … . Therefore, the burden shifted to plaintiff to “produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” … . Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden as his arguments before this Court and the motion court are based on unfounded speculation that the owners intended to use the house solely for commercial purposes.

The availability of the homeowner’s exemption hinges upon “the site and the purpose of the work, a test which must be employed on the basis of the homeowners’ intentions at the time of the injury” … . Accordingly, plaintiff and the dissent misplace their reliance on the lease, which the owners entered into almost two years after plaintiff’s injury. Farias v Simon, 2014 NY Slip Op 07932, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

Reversible Error to Deny Defendant’s Request for a Jury Instruction on the Terretorial Jurisdiction Requirement

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that the trial court’s failure, at the defendant’s request, to instruct the jury on the terretorial jurisdiction requirement (pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 20.20, an element of the charged offense must have been committed within New York State) was reversible error.  It was alleged that defendant, who worked in New York for a Danish company, essentially wrote checks from the company account to himself.  The defense requested a jury instruction on the requisites for the terretorial jurisdiction of a New York court over the alleged crime and the People did not oppose the request.  The First Department explained that, like a jury instruction on the requisites of venue, a jury instruction on the requisites of jurisdiction should be given upon request:

When a defendant requests the court to instruct the jury on venue, it is error to deny the request even if the People’s proof as to venue may be uncontradicted … . Thus, “when requested to submit the issue to the jury it is doubtful whether it would ever be proper for the court to deny the request and decide the issue as a matter of law on the theory that the People have met their burden by uncontradicted proof” … . These principles apply equally to the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which has a higher burden of proof and which “goes to the very essence of the State’s power to prosecute” … . * * *

Under [CPL 20.20] … “a person may be convicted . . . of an offense . . . committed . . . by his [or her] own conduct . . . when . . . [c]onduct occurred within this state sufficient to establish . . . [a]n element of such offense.” The CJI charge on territorial jurisdiction mirrors the statutory language, and further requires the jury to determine jurisdiction before they begin deliberations on whether the People have proven the defendant guilty of the charged crime. * * * … [T]he purpose of the jurisdiction charge is to focus the jury on this question, and the standard charge on the elements of the crime does not advise the jury that they must decide the threshold jurisdictional issue before deciding anything else. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 07965, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

,

Re: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Against the Directors of a Corporation, the Plaintiffs Failed to Rebut the Presumptions of Loyalty, Prudence and Good Faith Under the Business Judgment Rule

In finding that the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the directors of a corporation were properly dismissed, the First Department explained the relevant analysis:

The court, after citing and applying the correct standard of review …, properly dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims against [defendant-directors of the corporation] …, due to plaintiffs’ failure to rebut the presumptions of loyalty, prudence and good faith under the business judgment rule … . In particular, plaintiffs failed to allege facts that support a finding of interest or lack of independence by a majority of the board members … . Giuliano v Gawrylewski, 2014 NY Slip Op 07941, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

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