You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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

 

Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion Court Had Simply Ignored the Controlling Precedent—Therefore the Motion Was Actually a Motion to Reargue, the Denial of Which Is Not Appealable

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined that defendants’ motion, which was labeled a motion to renew, was actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable.  A motion to renew can be based upon a change in the law since the first motion was determined.  However, in this case, the trial judge who denied the original underlying motion, specifically refused to follow the appellate precedent in her department (re: the availability of nonpecuniary damages in a legal malpractice action). Because the underlying law did not change, but rather the law was simply ignored by the trial judge, there was no change in the law which could serve as a basis of a motion to renew. The legal malpractice action stemmed from defense counsel’s failure to raise the speedy trial defense in a criminal matter.  The plaintiff was freed after14 years of imprisonment on the basis of defense counsel’s failure.  D’Alessandro v Carro, 2014 NY Slip Op 06246, 1st Dept 9-18-14

 

, ,

Appellate Court Can Exercise Its Own Discretion Re: Scope of Discovery, Even in the Absence of Abuse

The First Department determined, over a dissent, that Supreme Court had improperly restricted the discovery of software code.  The court explained its power to overrule the trial court in this regard and the underlying principle allowing broad discovery:

New York strongly encourages open and full disclosure as a matter of policy … . To that end, CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.”

A trial court is vested with broad discretion in its supervision of disclosure … . Indeed, “deference is afforded to the trial court’s discretionary determinations regarding disclosure” … . However, “[t]his Court is vested with the power to substitute its own discretion for that of the motion court, even in the absence of abuse” … . We have observed that we “rarely and reluctantly invoke” our power to substitute our own discretion for that of the motion court … . We find that this case presents one of those rare instances in which we are compelled to substitute our discretion for that of the motion court. MSCI Inc v Jacob, 2014 NY Slip Op 06239, 1st Dept 8-18-14

 

, ,

Failure to Comply with California Insurance Law Rendered Arbitration Clauses in Agreements Issued by a California Workers’ Compensation Insurance Carrier Unenforceable

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, over a dissent, determined that the arbitration clauses within payment agreements issued by the California workers’ compensation insurance carrier were not enforceable because the clauses had not been reviewed as required by California law.  The agreements provided that any arbitration be under the auspices of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  But the court determined California’s insurance law was not preempted by the FAA (pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act) and, therefore, the failure to comply with California law rendered the arbitration clauses void and unenforceable:

…”[T]he McCarran-Ferguson Act was an attempt to . . . assure that the activities of insurance companies in dealing with their policyholders would remain subject to state regulation” (…see 15 USC § 1011). Courts have established a four-part test to determine whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act precludes application of a federal statute (in this case, the FAA). Under this test, a federal statute is precluded if: (1) the statute does not “specifically relate” to the business of insurance; (2) the acts challenged under the statute constitute the “business of insurance”; (3) the state has enacted laws regulating the challenged acts; and (4) the state laws would be “invalidated, impaired, or superseded” by application of the federal statute ….

…[T]he FAA does not specifically regulate the business of insurance, and an act specifically relating to the business of insurance is the only type of federal legislation that can preempt state insurance law under McCarran-Ferguson. Furthermore, application of the FAA would modify California law because it would mandate arbitration even though [the insurer] did not, as required by California law, file the payment agreements, and the payment agreements, in turn, contained the arbitration clauses. Matter of Monarch Consulting Inc v National Union Fire Ins Co of Pittsburgh PA, 2014 NY Slip Op 06158, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

Plank Used to Access Work Area Not Covered by Industrial Code—Labor Law 241(6) Action Dismissed

The First Department determined a plank used to walk on for access a work area was not “used in the construction of equipment or a temporary structure” and therefore could not be the basis of an action under Labor Law 241(6):

Insofar as the Labor Law § 241(6) claim is based on a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1), it should be dismissed. The accident occurred in an open working area, notwithstanding evidence that workers traversed the plank to get from the street to the job site … .

Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.11(a) states: “The lumber used in the construction of equipment or temporary structures required by this Part (rule) shall be sound and shall not contain any defects . . . which may impair the strength of such lumber for the purpose for which it is to be used.” While the plank on which DePaul slipped qualifies as dimensional lumber under the regulation, it fails to meet the other specified criteria: it was not used in the construction of equipment or a temporary structure, and no equipment or temporary structure required by Part 23 has been identified by plaintiffs. A plank fails to meet even the liberal definition of “structure” contained in Joblon v Solow …: “any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner” (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). Plaintiffs concede that the lumber was not joined together, and photographs of the location show only loose planks. Simply put, nothing had been constructed from the planks so as to come within the ambit of the regulation. Furthermore, the regulation applies only to a device required to be constructed by another provision of Part 23, as evident from subsections (b) and (c), which discuss, respectively, “[t]he lumber dimensions specified in this Part (rule)” and the nails required “to provide the required strength at all joints.” Thus …plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that § 23-1.11(a) is applicable, and this claim was properly dismissed … . DePaul v NY Brush LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06152, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

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