You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

City Was “United in Interest” with Non-Profit Corporation Which Maintained Central Park Pursuant to a Contract with the City—Therefore Plaintiff, Who Was Allegedly Injured by a Truck Owned by the Non-Profit Corporation, Could Amend His Complaint to Include the Non-Profit Corporation After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—However the Extent to Which the City Was “United in Interest” Was Dictated by the Terms of the Contract

The First Department determined that the Conservancy, a non-profit corporation which maintains Central Park under a contract with the City of New York, was “united in interest” with the City.  Therefore, plaintiff, who allegedly had been injured by a maintenance truck owned by the Conservancy, could amend his complaint to include the Conservancy, even though the statute of limitations had run.  The ‘unity of interest” was defined by the terms of the contract.  Because the contract did not call for the City to indemnify the Conservancy for gross negligence, the complaint against the Conservancy could not include the gross negligence claim:

… [P]laintiff relied on the 2006 Central Park Agreement, a contract between the City and the Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, in which they acknowledged that they had formed an effective “public/private partnership.” Under the Agreement, the Conservancy is required to provide specified maintenance services in Central Park to the “reasonable satisfaction” of the City, and the City is broadly required to indemnify the Conservancy “from and against any and all liabilities . . . arising from all services performed and activities conducted by [the Conservancy] pursuant to this agreement in Central Park.” The City’s indemnification obligation, among other things, expressly excludes claims arising from gross negligence or intentional acts of the Conservancy or its agents or volunteers. As a result of the Agreement, the Conservancy acts, in effect, as an independent contractor fulfilling the City’s nondelegable obligation to maintain the City parks in reasonably safe condition … .

The City is vicariously liable for the Conservancy’s negligence in the course of providing maintenance in Central Park by virtue of the contractual indemnification provision, and the parties are thus united in interest … . Further, since the City has a nondelegable duty to maintain Central Park, it is vicariously liable for negligence committed by the contractor in the course of fulfilling that duty … . However, the City is correct that its interests are not united with those of the Conservancy with respect to the proposed gross negligence claim, and leave to assert that claim against the Conservancy is therefore denied. Brunero v City of New York Dept of Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 07444, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Demonstrated Absence of Constructive Notice of Liquid on Stairs

The First Department determined that proof of the maintenance schedule was sufficient to demonstrate defendant did not have constructive notice of a spill on a staircase:

Defendant … demonstrated that it lacked constructive notice of the liquid on the staircase through the affidavit of the caretaker assigned to the building on the day before the accident, who averred that she would have followed the weekend janitorial schedule, which required inspecting the building by 11:00 a.m. on the day before the accident and removal of anything found on the staircase, and that, pursuant to the schedule, she would inspect the staircase at around 8:00 a.m. the next morning … . Her statement concerning the janitorial schedule was corroborated by her supervisor’s testimony. Plaintiff testified that the wet condition was not present on the stairs the prior evening, when she returned home at 9 p.m. Such evidence established that the wet liquid was deposited on the stairs only after the caretaker left work and that the accident occurred before the caretaker came to work the next morning. This time frame, occurring out of regular work hours, would not have provided the caretaker with a sufficient period of time to discover and remedy the problem … . Defendant is not required to patrol the staircases 24 hours a day … . Pagan v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 07441, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

Court’s Role In Reviewing a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Explained

In reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging breach of the terms of an employment contract, the First Department explained the court’s role in determining a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) [documentary evidence] and (a)(7) [failure to state a claim]:

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7) the court is limited to examining the complaint (and, under [a][1], the proffered documentary evidence) to determine whether the complaint states a cause of action … . The law is also settled that “in assessing the adequacy of a complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint to be true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference” … . “Whether the plaintiff will ultimately be successful in establishing [its] allegations is not part of the calculus” … . Greystone Funding Corp v Kutner, 2014 NY Slip Op 07296, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

,

Warrantless Search of Backpack After Juvenile Was Handcuffed and Placed in a Police Car Justified by “Close Spatial and Temporal Proximity” and “Exigent Circumstances”

The First Department affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication based upon the juvenile’s possession of an air pistol, which was discovered in a warrantless search of the juvenile’s backpack after the juvenile was handcuffed.  In explaining why the suppression motion was properly denied, the court wrote:

The police lawfully detained appellant as a suspected truant … . In the course of this detention, the police lawfully patted down appellant’s book bag, particularly since as appellant approached the police car, the bag hit the car, making a distinctive metallic sound that the officer recognized as the sound of a firearm. In patting down the bag, an officer felt the distinctive shape of a pistol, including its grip and trigger guard. The warrantless search of the bag, after appellant had been handcuffed and placed in the police car, was justified by close spatial and temporal proximity, as well as by exigent circumstances … . These circumstances included the fact that defendant resisted arrest, the officers’ knowledge that appellant was on probation in connection with a past robbery and that he had resisted arrest before, the officers’ high level of certainty that the bag actually contained a weapon, and the danger of appellant reaching the bag, despite being handcuffed, while seated in the police car next to the officer who had the bag. Matter of Kenneth S, 2014 NY Slip Op 07299, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

Failure to Allege “Demand Futility” as Required Under Delaware Law Required Dismissal of the Derivative Causes of Action

The First Department determined the derivative claims in the complaint against a Delaware corporation were properly dismissed for failure to allege demand futility, as required under Delaware law:

Under Delaware law, where, as here, no demand has been made on corporate directors to bring a lawsuit, a derivative action may be brought on the corporation’s behalf only where the complaint alleged particularized facts that such a demand would have been futile … . To allege demand futility, the complaint must set forth particularized facts sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that either (1) the directors are disinterested and independent, or (2) the challenged transaction was the result of a protected business judgment … . Whitecap (US) Fund I, LP v Siemens First Capital Commercial Fin LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07297, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

,

No Privity Between Insured and Reinsurers Which Contracted Solely with the Insurer—Counterclaims by Insured Against Reinsurers Should Have Been Dismissed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Freedman, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed counterclaims against reinsurers (NICO and Resolute) by the insured (Colgate) because no contract existed between the reinsurers and the insured. The contractual relationship was solely between the insurer (OneBeacon) and the reinsurers.  Colgate alleged that the actions of NICO and Resolute prevented Colgate from exercising control over lawsuits, including whether to settle or litigate. The underlying lawsuits alleged that talc produced by Colgate contained asbestos:

Colgate’s claims raise the issue of whether an insurance policyholder has rights against its carrier’s reinsurer, if the reinsurer administers the insured’s claims under the policy. In a typical reinsurance arrangement, where the carrier administers claims and the reinsurer merely indemnifies it in accordance with the “follow the fortunes” doctrine (see United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v American Re-Ins. Co., 93 AD3d 14, 23 [1st Dept 2012], mod 20 NY3d 407 [2013]), the insured can only state viable claims against the reinsurer in specific circumstances that do not pertain here. In this case, Colgate only holds the Policies with OneBeacon. The carrier’s reinsurer, NICO, and its affiliate, Resolute, both adjust Colgate’s Policy claims and indemnify OneBeacon for claim payouts. NICO’s and Resolute’s dual role does not, however, give rise to any liability to Colgate because Colgate lacks contractual privity with NICO and Resolute. In the absence of privity, Colgate’s breach of contract claims against NICO and Resolute fail. OneBeacon Am Ins Co v Colgate-Palmolive Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07315, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

, ,

If a Contractual Representation or Warranty is False When Made, a Claim for Breach of Contract Accrues Upon Execution

The First Department noted that if a contractual representation or warranty is false when made, a claim for breach accrues at the time of the execution of the contract, even if the contract states that the “effective date” is earlier.  US Bank NA v DLJ Mtge Capital Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07093, 1st Dept 10-21-14

 

, ,

Landlord May Not Withhold Consent for Continued Operation of a Sidewalk Cafe Where the Lease Contemplated the Operation of the Cafe (Which Had Been in Operation for 50 Years) and Where the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Restricted the Landlord’s Ability to Withhold Consent/Erroneous Stipulated Fact Does Not Bind the Appellate Court

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that a landlord could not terminate the tenant’s operation of a sidewalk cafe because the lease contemplated that use and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing restricted the landlord’s ability to deny consent to the continued operation of the cafe.  [The underlying ruling was made on stipulated facts which included the erroneous “fact” that the lease did not include the cafe as part of the leased premises.  The First Department noted that it is not bound on appeal by an incorrect stipulation of fact]:

The question presented on appeal is whether a landlord has an unfettered right to withhold or terminate its consent to a tenant’s operation of a sidewalk café, where the café has existed for at least 50 years and the lease contemplates the use of the sidewalk for that purpose. We hold that defendants may not withhold or terminate their consent, irrespective of whether they have a good-faith basis for doing so, because the lease expressly and unequivocally requires them to consent to plaintiff’s operation of the sidewalk café. In any event, we find that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing would otherwise restrict defendants’ ability to deny consent, and that they have failed to make a satisfactory showing of good faith in this case. * * *

Having determined that the lease allows plaintiff to use and occupy the sidewalk for the operation of a sidewalk café, it necessarily follows that defendants cannot withhold or revoke their consent to that use absent a good-faith basis. As the Court of Appeals has explained, “In New York, all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance. This covenant embraces a pledge that neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract. While the duties of good faith and fair dealing do not imply obligations inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship, they do encompass any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included” (511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 NY2d 144, 153 [2002] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]).

Because the stipulated facts demonstrate that the sidewalk café existed at the time of the lease’s execution, plaintiff (through its assignor) was justified in understanding that the landlord promised to refrain from unreasonably withholding its consent to operate the sidewalk café. DMF Gramercy Enters Inc v Lillian Troy 1999 Trust, 2014 NY Slip Op 07110, 1st Dept 10-21-14

 

, ,

Videotaped Interview Indicated Defendant Did Not Understand His Right to Counsel—The Videotaped Statement, As Well As the Prior Oral and Written Statements, Should Have Been Suppressed

The First Department determined the People did not meet their burden of demonstrating the defendant understood his Miranda rights at the time he waived them.  After waiving his rights and making an oral and written statement, the defendant spoke with the Assistant District Attorney (ADA).  During that conversation, which was videotaped, the defendant gave responses which indicated he did not understand he had the right to talk to his own attorney before speaking with the ADA.  The court determined that the videotaped statement, as well as the prior oral and written statements, should have been suppressed:

…[I]t is not clear that this 18-year-old defendant with no prior criminal history, who could not read or write, ever understood his right to counsel nor the consequences of waiver. The evidence shows that defendant responded “yes” to questions when asked if he understood his rights. Then, immediately afterwards, defendant expressed confusion in understanding his right to counsel. As such, the People failed to present evidence that established defendant sufficiently understood the immediate import of the Miranda warnings. Moreover, ADA Elliot’s explanations failed to clarify for defendant the concept of his right to counsel. Thus, given defendant’s age, illiteracy, unfamiliarity with the criminal justice system, and statements expressing confusion about his Miranda rights, it is evident that the People failed to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights … . People v Adames, 2014 NY Slip Op 07063, 1st Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Failure to Submit Expert Affidavit In Support of Meterological Data Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Defendant City’s Assertion It Did Not Have Sufficient Time to Remove Snow and Ice from a Sidewalk

The First Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant city in a slip and fall case.  The city argued that it did not have sufficient time to address the snow and ice on the sidewalk, and submitted meterological data without an expert affidavit.  The First Department determined the absence of an expert affidavit precluded summary judgment:

“Summary judgment in a snow or ice case is proper where a defendant demonstrates, through climatological data and expert opinion, that the weather conditions would preclude the existence of snow or ice at the time of the accident” … . Accordingly, because it failed to offer an expert opinion, in addition to the meteorological records, the City’s motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s papers in opposition … . While, as the dissent notes, no expert affidavit was required by this Court in Daley v Janel Tower L.P. (89 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2011]), it is worth noting that there it was hardly needed.  it is worth noting that there it was hardly needed. That is because in Daley “the climatological reports showed that it last snowed more than one week prior to plaintiff’s fall and that during the three-day period prior to plaintiff’s fall, temperatures remained well above freezing” (89 AD3d at 409). Here, by contrast, the climatological reports showed that, except for a few hours of above-freezing temperatures and non-freezing rain, temperatures generally remained below freezing for the entire period between the December 19 storm and the accident four days later. Plaintiff’s expert opined that these conditions were suitable for the ice that formed as a result of the initial storm to remain, but not for the formation of new ice, which the City would have had insufficient time to clear. Without an expert to interpret the meteorological record in a way that would disprove this theory, the City failed to establish a right to judgment as a matter of law. Rodriguez v Woods, 2014 NY Slip Op 06887, 1st Dept 10-14-14

 

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