You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

,

Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion

The First Department explained that, while hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, it can not be the sole basis for denying the motion:

“A party opposing summary judgment may proffer hearsay evidence, but such proof may not be the sole factual basis for denying summary judgment” … . * * * …[D]efendant’s affidavit relies only on hearsay evidence … . The documentary evidence is to the contrary. Andron v Libby, 2014 NY Slip Op 06155, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

, ,

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

 

,

Shareholders’ Requests for Documents for Investigation of Possible Wrongdoing by Corporation Were Facially Legitimate Under the Business Corporation Law (BCL) and Common Law–No Need for Shareholders to Bring a Shareholders’ Derivative Action to Procure the Documents

The First Department determined shareholders’ (petitioners’) requests for documents from the respondent corporation were facially legitimate pursuant to the Business Corporation Law (BCL) and common law and disputes about the propriety of the requests should be resolved in a hearing.  Supreme Court’s ruling that the petitioners were required to institute a shareholders’ derivative action was reversed.  The shareholders were investigating whether respondent’s board of directors failed to oversee wrongdoing by S & P, a credit rating agency wholly owned by respondent:

Under New York law, shareholders have both statutory and common-law rights to inspect a corporation’s books and records so long as the shareholders seek the inspection in good faith and for a valid purpose … . The statutory right supplemented, but did not replace, the common-law right … .

Here, petitioners sufficiently showed that they were acting in good faith and for a proper purpose in seeking to enforce their common-law right to inspect respondent’s books and records. Specifically, the petition alleges that petitioners seek to investigate alleged mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty by respondent’s board of directors in failing to oversee purported wrongdoing by S & P; this alleged wrongdoing, petitioners assert, exposed respondent to substantial potential liability in multiple civil actions and investigations. These allegations form a proper basis for petitioners’ request … .

Contrary to respondent’s contentions, investigating alleged misconduct by management and obtaining information that may aid legitimate litigation are, in fact, proper purposes for a BCL § 624 request, even if the inspection ultimately establishes that the board had engaged in no wrongdoing … . Indeed, petitioners identified several reasons for making their demand, including assessment of policies that the board had implemented when issuing credit ratings and investigation of possible wrongdoing by the respondent’s board of directors. Each of these purposes adequately justifies petitioners’ access to certain board documents. Moreover, because the common-law right of inspection is broader than the statutory right, petitioners are entitled to inspect books and records beyond the specific materials delineated in BCL § 624(b) and (e) … . Retirement Plan for Gen Empls of City of N Miami Beach vs McGraw-Hill Cos Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06154, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

, , ,

One Year Statute of Limitations in Labor Law 740 Trumps the One-Year-Ninety-Days Statute of Limitations in General Municipal Law 50-e(5) (Incorporated Into the Health & Hospitals Corporation Act)

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff’s action was time-barred pursuant to Labor Law 740 and was not covered by Labor Law 741. Plaintiff sued the NYC Health & Hospitals Corp (HHC) after she was terminated.  She alleged her termination was in retaliation for her objecting to the documentation submitted concerning human-subject research programs.  Plaintiff’s job entailed reviewing the documentation and did not involve caring for patients:

We turn first to the claim under Labor Law § 740. That cause of action is time-barred under the terms of the statute itself because …HHC terminated petitioner’s employment on April 6, 2009, and petitioner filed her petition for leave to file a late notice of claim on July 2, 2010, after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations incorporated into the statute (see Labor Law § 740[4][a]). General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), made applicable to HHC by HHC Act § 20(2), permits a court to entertain a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim only within the applicable limitations period, not, as here, after the limitations period has expired. Contrary to Supreme Court’s view, the one-year statute of limitations that is part of section 740 takes precedence over the one-year and 90-day limitations period set forth in the HHC Act … .

Although not time-barred, the claim under Labor Law § 741 is also without merit as a matter of law. Section 741 affords to a health care “employee,” as defined in the statute, a cause of action against the employer for “retaliatory action” (§ 741[2]) taken “because the employee does any of the following:

“(a) discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor, or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer or agent that the employee, in good faith, reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care; or

“(b) objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or practice of the employer or agent that the employee, in good faith, reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care.”

Section 741 defines the term “employee,” as used in that statute, as “any person who performs health care services for and under the control and direction of any public or private employer which provides health care services for wages or other remuneration” (§ 741[1][a] [emphasis added]). The Court of Appeals, describing this definition as “exactingly specific” … . Matter of Moynihan v New York City Health & Hosps Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06038, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

, ,

Continuous Treatment Doctrine (Tolling the Statute of Limitations) Explained In Depth

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the jury’s conclusion the statute of limitations was tolled under the continuous treatment doctrine should not be disturbed.  Plaintiff underwent Lasik surgery and complained of blurry vision and other complications in several follow up visits which ended in 2004.  Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit after a subsequent visit in 2007.  The question was whether the 2007 visit was related to the 2004 visits such that the continuous treatment doctrine applied.  The court discussed the doctrine in depth.  The court noted that the doctrine did not apply to plaintiff-wife’s derivative claims:

Plaintiff … asserts that the 2007 visit satisfied CPLR 214-a, because it was for the “same” condition as the 2004 visits, which was blurry vision in his left eye. He further argues that whether he and defendant agreed that he would seek further treatment after the May 2004 visit is irrelevant, because defendant “guaranteed” that the Lasik procedure would correct the blurry condition, and stated that he was plaintiff’s “doctor for life” for that purpose.

Although the CPLR defines “continuous” treatment as treatment “for the same illness, injury or condition” out of which the malpractice arose (CPLR 214-a [emphasis added]), the controlling case law holds only that the subsequent medical visits must “relate” to the original condition … . Here, plaintiff initially engaged defendant to correct his blurry vision, and the 2007 visit was motivated by continued blurriness in plaintiff’s eye, thus making the two visits “related” … . Devadas v Niksarli, 2014 NY Slip Op 06032, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

,

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Pursuant to Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine—Doctrine Explained In Depth

The First Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgement should have been granted to the plaintiff pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  Plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s train, was struck when a ceiling panel (used to access the ventilation system) swung open.  The decision includes an extensive discussion of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine:

While summary judgment is rarely granted in res ipsa loquitur cases, it is appropriate in “exceptional case[s],” such as this one, where “the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … .

To demonstrate a claim under the doctrine, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of defendant’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality causing the accident was within defendant’s exclusive control; and (3) the accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by plaintiff … .

Plaintiff met all three elements with her submission of witness testimony and the testimony of defendant’s foreman. The foreman testified that the train’s HVAC and ventilation system was accessible through the ceiling panel that hit plaintiff. He also testified that to his knowledge, no one but defendant’s personnel accessed the ceiling panels and that he had no explanation for how the accident occurred. The foreman described the panel as being fastened to the ceiling with four screws outside and two safety latches and a safety chain inside.

Defendant concedes the first and third elements but argues that it did not have exclusive control over the ceiling panels. However, defendant offers no evidence to support its argument. Rather, defendant simply offers its attorney’s affirmation, in which counsel opines that “the only logical conclusion,” considering the foreman’s testimony, was that the accident occurred because [*2]of tampering by unauthorized individuals. This statement, which amounts to no more than counsel’s speculation about what might have happened, is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion … . Barney-Yeboah v Metro-North Commuter RR, 2014 NY Slip Op 06036, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Should Be Dismissed When It Is the Same as the Breach of Contract Claim

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, upheld most of the motion court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract action, but agreed with the defendant that the cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing should have been dismissed because it was the same as the breach of contract claim.  (The opinion is detailed and fact-specific with little discussion of general legal principles and therefore is not summarized here):

Where a good faith claim arises from the same facts and seeks the same damages as a breach of contract claim, it should be dismissed … . Mill Fin LLC v Gillett, 2014 NY Slip Op 06039, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

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