You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , , ,

The Language of the NYC Rent Control Law, Unlike the Language of the NYC Rent Stabilization Law, Does Not Allow “Luxury Deregulation” After the Expiration of J-51 Tax Benefits

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, determined that the relevant provision of the NYC Rent and Rehabilitation Act (Rent Control Law or RCL) could not be interpreted to allow “luxury deregulation” of a rent-controlled apartment upon the expiration of “J-51” tax benefits.  “Luxury deregulation” refers to the removal of rent controls where the tenant can afford to pay market rates. The opinion focused upon the wording of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) versus the wording of the Rent Control Law (RCL) .  The RSL specifically allows the owner of an apartment to apply for luxury deregulation upon the expiration of the J-51 tax benefits, while the RCL (the controlling regulation here) does not.  The opinion includes a discussion of court-review of an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute where specialized knowledge is not involved, and statutory-interpretation criteria:

At the outset, we note that the question before us turns purely on statutory interpretation. As such, we need not defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statutes in question, as we are not called upon “to interpret a statute where specialized knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices or . . . an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom’ is at stake” … . * * *

The owner argues that the rationale of [the RSL] should also apply to apartments subject to rent control, because, inter alia, to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the purpose of the luxury deregulation law, which attempted to “restore some rationality to a system which provides the bulk of its benefits to high income tenants” … . We are not unmindful that the legislative history indicates a preference not to have people who can easily afford market value rental property inhabit rent-regulated housing. However, this history does not offer sufficient evidence to alter the unambiguous language of Administrative Code § 26-403(e)(2)(j). To do so would require us to import new language into the RCL and “give it a meaning not otherwise found therein” … . Indeed, “where the language of a statute is clear, there is little room to add to or take away from that meaning'” … . If the application of such long-established principles of statutory construction produces “an undesirable result, the problem is one to be addressed by the Legislature” … . Matter of RAM I LLC v NYS Div of Hous & Community Renewal, 2014 NY Slip Op 06784, 1st Dept 10-7-14

 

Falling Block Not Shown to Be Related to the Failure of a Safety Device—Labor Law 240(1) Did Not Apply

The First Department determined injury from a stone block which fell from a pallet was not covered by Labor Law 240(1) because it was not demonstrated the incident resulted from the failure of a safety device:

The motion court properly granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Section 240(1) does not apply automatically every time a worker is injured by a falling object … . Rather, the “decisive question is whether plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . The worker must establish that the object fell because of the inadequacy or absence of a safety device of the kind contemplated by the statute … . In order for something to be deemed a safety device under the statute, it must have been put in place “as to give proper protection” for the worker (§ 240[1]).

Here, we conclude that plaintiff’s injury was not caused by the absence or inadequacy of the kind of safety device enumerated in the statute … . Plaintiff does not contend that the block itself was inadequately secured. Instead, plaintiff argues that § 240(1) is applicable because his injuries were caused by defendants’ failure to provide an adequate safety device to hold the plastic tarp in place. Specifically, plaintiff maintains that the plastic tarp was inadequately secured because, if it had been properly secured, such as with ropes and stakes, plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred.

Plaintiff’s argument is unconvincing. The plastic tarp was not an object that needed to be secured for the purposes of § 240(1)…, nor is there any indication that the tarp caused plaintiff’s injuries. Guallpa v Leon D DeMatteis Constr Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06666, 1st Dept 10-2-14

 

Labor Law 241(6) Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Although Claimant Did Not Perform “Labor-Intense Aspects of the Project” His Finance-Related Job Entailed On-Site Inspections

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) claim should not have been dismissed.  Although plaintiff did not perform labor, his finance-related job required that he inspect the work site.  Plaintiff tripped and fell while doing an inspection:

Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim was improperly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff was not covered under the statute. Plaintiff testified that he was an onsite project manager, employed by one of multiple general contractors on the subject construction project, whose job pertained to financial issues such as billing of subcontractors and revenue projections for the project. He testified that he tripped and fell in a vestibule he was walking through, intending to conduct a visual inspection of a condition alleged … to support a back charge for “additional work,” in order to determine whether this claim was substantiated. Thus, plaintiff was not merely working in a building that happened to be under construction … . Rather, his job duties, including the inspection he was conducting at the time of the accident, were contemporaneous with and related to ongoing work on the construction project … . Thus, plaintiff was covered under the statute even though he did not perform the “labor-intense aspects of the project” … .  DeSimone v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 06667, 1st Dept 10-2-14

 

,

Warrantless Cell Phone Search Required Suppression and a New Trial

The First Department ordered a new trial because the police searched defendant’s phone without a warrant and used photos found on the phone as the basis for a search warrant:

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress photographs obtained from his cell phone. After the police arrested defendant and seized his phone, an officer looked through it without a warrant, and found two photos stored on the phone that depicted a pistol resembling the pistol recovered in this case. It was not disputed that the search of defendant’s cell phone was unlawful. Moreover, a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holds that a cell phone is not a proper subject of a warrantless search incident to arrest … .

After finding the photos on the phone, the same officer averred in an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant, which specifically sought to search photographs among other things on the phone, that there was reasonable cause to believe that evidence concerning defendant’s possession of a firearm existed on defendant’s phone. This evidence demonstrated that the “decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what [the police] had seen during the initial entry” … . Rather than applying for a warrant on the basis of mere probable cause, the officer “achieve[d] certain cause by conducting an unlawful confirmatory search,” which “undermines the very purpose of the warrant requirement and cannot be tolerated” … . Accordingly, even if there were independent probable cause for the warrant, it would not immunize the initial warrantless search, or permit the subsequently-granted warrant to render the photos admissible … . Nor may the inevitable discovery doctrine be applied to this evidence; the exception does not apply where “the evidence sought to be suppressed is the very evidence obtained in the illegal search” … . People v Marinez, 2014 NY Slip Op 06668, 1st Dept 10-2-14

 

,

In a Hybrid Action, the Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages Were Distinct from the Causes of Action Seeking Annulment of Town a Resolution/Four-Month Statute of Limitations Did Not Apply to Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages

The First Department determined that certain causes of action in a hybrid proceeding were not time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. When the plaintiffs did not repair the property which was alleged to endanger a drinking water source, the town had the property repaired pursuant to a town resolution and a special tax assessment was imposed to pay for the repairs.  The plaintiffs brought a hybrid proceeding challenging the resolution and tax assessment and seeking damages for the destruction of plaintiffs’ property and the interruption of plaintiffs’ business. The causes of action seeking damages were not barred by the four-month statute:

In the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action, the plaintiffs sought, in effect, to annul the tax assessment referable to the cost of demolition of the retaining wall and rear wall of the building and the rebuilding of the retaining wall and, by implication, sought to annul the Resolution authorizing the demolition and the assessment against the property. They likewise contended that the Town failed to give them proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, as required by section 66-11. Since the substance of these causes of action was a challenge to administrative decisions and a special tax assessment, the court properly concluded that these causes of action constituted requests for relief pursuant CPLR article 78, regardless of the form in which they were pleaded … . * * *

The court erred … in granting those branches of the Town’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, third, and eighth causes of action. These causes of action assert claims, inter alia, for damages resulting from the destruction of a portion of the garage building and the interruption of the plaintiffs’ business. Pursuant to CPLR 7806, where a CPLR article 78 petitioner seeks damages as well as the annulment of a governmental determination, “[a]ny restitution or damages granted to the petitioner must be incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, and must be such as he [or she] might otherwise recover on the same set of facts in a separate action or proceeding suable in the supreme court against the same body or officer in its or his official capacity” (CPLR 7806). “[W]here the thrust of the lawsuit is the review of an adverse . . . agency determination, with the monetary relief incidental, [the] Supreme Court may entertain the entire case under CPLR article 78” … . “Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, third, and eighth causes of action, in which the plaintiffs sought money damages, were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment … . Therefore, these causes of action were not asserted in connection with the CPLR article 78 portion of this hybrid action/proceeding, and were not barred by the four-month statute of limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings (see CPLR 217). Hertzel v Town of Putnam Val, 2014 NY Slip Op 06558, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

,

Derivative-Shareholder-Claim Versus Direct-Individual-Claim Explained/Out-of-Pocket Damages Rule for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims Briefly Discussed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, with one exception, affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of defendant’s (Lipper’s) cross-claims because the cross-claims were deemed derivative claims by a shareholder, not direct, individual claims.  Lipper alleged damages stemming from the overvaluation of Lipper’s hedge fund assets by defendant Pricewaterhouse Coopers. In addition to the “derivative versus direct claim” issue, the court briefly discussed the “out of pocket” damages rule re: the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims stemming from Lipper’s payment of gift taxes based upon the overvalued assets given to his daughters:

It is black letter law that a stockholder has no individual cause of action against a person or entity that has injured the corporation. This is true notwithstanding that the wrongful acts may have diminished the value of the shares of the corporation, or that the shareholder incurs personal liability in an effort to maintain the solvency of the corporation …, or that the wrongdoer may ultimately share in the recovery in a derivative action if the wrongdoer owns shares in the corporation … . An exception exists, however, where the wrongdoer has breached a duty owed directly to the shareholder which is independent of any duty owing to the corporation … . This is a narrow exception, and Lipper’s cross claim must be factually supportable by more than complaints that conflate his derivative and individual rights … . In addition, Lipper may not obtain a recovery that otherwise duplicates or belongs to the corporation … .

Recognizing the difficulty in determining whether a claim is direct or derivative in the recent case of Yudell v Gilbert (99 AD3d 108 1st Dept [2012]), this court adopted the test developed by the Supreme Court of Delaware in Tooley v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. (845 A2d 1031, 1039 [Del 2004]) as a common sense approach to resolving such issues. We held that the Delaware test is consistent with existing New York State law. In order to distinguish a derivative claim from a direct one, the court considers “(1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the stockholders individually)” … . If there is any harm caused to the individual, as opposed to the corporation, then the individual may proceed with a direct action … . On the other hand, even where an individual harm is claimed, if it is confused with or embedded in the harm to the corporation, it cannot separately stand… . * * *

…[W]e find that recoupment of [gift] taxes paid violates New York’s out-of-pocket damages rule applicable to both the fraud and negligent misrepresentation cross claims Lipper has asserted … . Pursuant to the New York rule, recovery is denied where it leaves the claimant in a better position than the claimant would have been in the absence of wrongdoing … . Lipper contends that he would not have made the gifts to his daughters if he had known the true value of his holdings. The payment of taxes was a consequence of making that gift. The relief he seeks would put him in a better financial position than had the claimed wrongdoing not occurred … . Serino v Lipper,2014 NY Slip Op 06551, 1st Dept 9-30-14

 

, ,

Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting of Defendant’s Request to Have the Colloquy Read to the Jury Over Defense Counsel’s Objection Deprived Defendant of His Right To Counsel

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the court granted the defendant’s request to read co-defendant’s plea colloquy to the jury over defense counsel’s objection.  The colloquy was inadmissible hearsay.  Defense counsel alone can determine what evidence is introduced on defendant’s behalf:

Defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the court read the transcript of the codefendant’s guilty plea allocution to the jury. The codefendant’s statements by which she inculpated defendant, were testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant, whom defendant did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]).

The People’s argument that the Confrontation Clause was inapplicable because defendant himself introduced the evidence is unavailing. Although defendant personally requested the introduction of the evidence, he was not appearing pro se. Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the case, and there was no form of hybrid representation. The decision to introduce evidence was not a fundamental decision reserved to defendant, but a strategic or tactical decision for his attorney … . Thus, defendant was deprived of his right to counsel when the court admitted the evidence solely based on his own request, over his attorney’s vigorous and consistent opposition … . People v Lee, 2014 NY Slip Op 06374, 1st Dept 9-25-14

 

Fiduciary’s Conflict of Interest Renders Transactions Voidable

The First Department noted the effect of a fiduciary’s conflict of interest upon transactions entered into by the fiduciary:

When a fiduciary has a conflict of interest in entering a transaction and does not disclose that conflict to his/her principal, the transaction is “voidable at the option of” the principal … . Moreover, “an agent cannot bind his principal . . . where he is known to be acting for himself, or to have an adverse interest” … .  Genger v Genger, 2014 NY Slip Op 06248, 1st Dept 9-23-14

 

, ,

Motion for Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied—Injuries to Infant Plaintiff Consistent with Premature Birth

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly denied a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim in a medical malpractice action which alleged injuries to an infant born prematurely:

In this action for medical malpractice, in which the infant plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries he suffered after being born at 27 weeks’ gestation, the motion court considered the pertinent statutory factors and properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The infant plaintiff’s mother’s excuses that she was unfamiliar with the requirement that she file a notice of claim, and that she was unaware that her son’s injuries were caused by defendant Health and Hospital Corporation’s (HHC) malpractice, are not reasonable. Nor is her attorney’s assertion that he waited to make the motion until approximately three years and ten months after filing the untimely notice of claim because he needed to receive the medical records from HHC … .

Further, the medical records demonstrate that the infant plaintiff’s condition and prognosis are consistent with his premature birth and do not suggest any injury attributable to the hospital staff’s malpractice … . Moreover, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the medical records put HHC on notice that the alleged malpractice would subsequently give rise to brain damage as a result of birth trauma and hypoxia or that he would subsequently develop other deficits, delays, and disorders … . Wally G v New York City Health & Hosps Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06241, 1st Dept 9-18-14

 

,

Criteria for Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action Explained

The First Department determined the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and laid out the criteria, including a “special relationship” close to privity:

To properly assert a claim on a theory of negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must plead: “(1) that the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposed a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff; (2) that the imparted information was actually incorrect; and (3) that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the information” … .

As to the first element, a court will find a special relationship if the record supports “a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” … or, stated another way, the “functional equivalent of contractual privity” … . Under this standard, before liability for negligent misrepresentation may attach in favor of a third party, there must be: (1) an awareness by the maker of the statement that the statement is to be used for a particular purpose; (2) reliance by a known party on the statement in furtherance of that purpose; and (3) some conduct by the maker of the statement linking it to the relying party and evincing its understanding of that reliance… . North Star Contr Corp v MTA Capital Constr Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 06238, 1st Dept 9-18-14

 

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