You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION BECAUSE SHE WAS A REGISTERED NURSE, NOT A DOCTOR; THE REGISTERED NURSE WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON FALL PREVENTION; AN EXPERT’S QUALIFICATIONS SPEAK TO THE WEIGHT OF THE OPINION EVIDENCE, NOT ADMISSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by plaintiff’s expert, a registered nurse, should not have been rejected because she was not a physician. Plaintiff’s decedent was a nursing-home patient with dementia who fell. The registered nurse was qualified to offer opinion evidence about measures to prevent elderly patients from falling:

Supreme Court disregarded plaintiff’s nursing expert’s opinion because she is not a medical doctor. However, the standard of care at issue clearly falls within the duties and expertise of a registered nurse. At the defendant nursing home, patient assessments were performed by registered nurses and evaluated by a team which included registered nurses. The nursing expert’s curriculum vitae demonstrates that she has a Bachelor of Science in nursing from the University of the State of New York, is licensed as a registered nurse in New York, and has worked in nursing since 1980. In particular, she has over fifteen years of experience conducting plan of care assessments for high-risk nursing home patients. Therefore, plaintiff’s nursing expert demonstrated that she has the requisite experience and expertise to opine as to the proper medical standard for preventing falls in elderly patients with dementia residing in skilled nursing facilities and whether defendant deviated from that standard … .

Furthermore, challenges regarding an expert witness’s qualifications affect the weight to be accorded the expert’s views, not their admissibility … . Rodriguez v Isabella Geriatric Ctr. Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02608, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: Here the registered nurse was qualified to offer an opinion on the measures necessary to prevent geriatric patients from falling.

Practice Point: An expert’s qualifications speak to the weight of the opinion evidence, not its admissibility. Here the registered nurses opinion should not have been rejected because she was not a physician.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL ACTION, DEFENDANTS RAISED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT BY POINTING TO INCONSISTENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were able to raise triable issues of fact in this ladder-fall Labor Law 240(1) cause by pointing to inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s version of events:

Plaintiff was allegedly injured while removing and replacing bricks on a building at a construction site. At his deposition, plaintiff testified that while working, he climbed up an extension ladder to retrieve materials necessary for the project. According to plaintiff, when he reached a point around seven to eight feet off the ground, the ladder suddenly moved, causing him to fall.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting his deposition testimony describing the accident, along with photographic evidence of the accident site.

… [D]efendants raised triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat the motion by identifying various inconsistencies in plaintiffs account of the accident, thus calling into question his overall credibility and the circumstances underlying his claimed injuries … . For example, plaintiff testified inconsistently about the day that he was allegedly injured, whether he continued working after his alleged accident, and whether he promptly reported his accident. Further, the record evidence shows that plaintiff first went to the hospital at least several days after his employer had allegedly terminated him for unexplained, repeated absenteeism. Simpertegui v Carlyle House Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02609, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: Credibility issues can defeat a motion for summary judgment.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLOWING HIS ATTACKER INTO HIS APARTMENT WAS AN INTERVENING ACT AND A SUPERSEDING PROXIMATE CAUSE WHICH RELIEVED THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS OF ANY LIABILITY FOR LAPSES IN SECURITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that there was evidence building security was lax, but plaintiff’s allowing the attacker, whom plaintiff knew, into to plaintiff’s apartment was an intervening act relieving the building defendants from liability:

Plaintiff, a psychiatrist, was conducting a patient session in his home office when Jacob Nolan, the cousin of his estranged former partner barged unannounced into the office. He was carrying a large black duffel bag and demanded that plaintiff give him certain financial documents required for the child shared by plaintiff and the former partner.… Plaintiff reproached Nolan, successfully expelled him from the apartment and locked the door. After the session, the patient departed but quickly returned to advise the plaintiff that the man who barged in was loitering in a common area of the building. Plaintiff then escorted his patient to the elevator and again engaged Nolan in dialogue. Nolan again communicated that his purported purpose was to retrieve some financial documents for the former partner and asked to use the bathroom in plaintiff’s apartment (which plaintiff made available to patients). Plaintiff then permitted Nolan into his locked apartment to use the bathroom, while plaintiff printed the form Nolan had requested. Nolan then suddenly emerged from the bathroom and attacked plaintiff, hitting him with a sledgehammer and stabbing him multiple times with a knife. Nolan and the former partner were both arrested and convicted for felony assaults upon the plaintiff.

… Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. … [P]laintiff raised legitimate issues regarding lapses in the defendants’ security protocols, such as defendants’ allowing Nolan to enter and wander around the building for over twenty minutes before exiting, only to re-enter the building minutes later without being challenged by the building staff about his continued presence. Plaintiff’s conduct in re-admitting Nolan into the apartment after earlier expelling him, however, constituted an intervening act and a superseding proximate cause … . Weiss v Park Towers S. Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02612, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff knew his attacker and allowed the attacker into his apartment. That was an intervening act and a superseding proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries which insulated the building defendants from liability for lapses in security.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM A LEDGE OUTSIDE HIS HOTEL ROOM; HOTEL STAFF DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY OF CARE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; A DELAY AFTER A FAMILY MEMBER’S REQUEST THAT HOTEL STAFF CALL THE POLICE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERT OPINION TO HAVE CAUSED THE SUICIDE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the defendant hotel did not assume a duty of care for a hotel guest who committed suicide and did not proximately cause plaintiff-decedent’s suicide. Hotel staff had been made aware of decedent’s family’s fear that decedent, who was in a room at the hotel, was suicidal. Hotel staff checked on the decedent, who indicated he was “fine.” Subsequently a family member, who had been communicating with decedent, asked hotel staff to call the police. The crux of the lawsuit is the allegation that a delay in calling the police caused decedent to commit suicide. After breaking into decedent’s locked room, the police found decedent on a ledge outside the window and unsuccessfully tried to talk him back into the room:

An entity in control of a premises, “whether [it] be a landowner or a leaseholder, is not an insurer of the visitor’s safety” … . Absent a duty of care, there is no breach and no liability, regardless of how careless the conduct … . * * *

Plaintiffs … contend that defendants breached an assumed duty of care when they agreed to check on the decedent after being informed of his suicidal ideations and failed to act carefully or reasonably in contacting the police.

While “one who assumes a duty to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully” … , a defendant can only be held “liable for a breach of an assumed duty where the plaintiff shows reliance on the defendant’s course of conduct, such that the defendant’s conduct placed him or her in a more vulnerable position than he or she would otherwise have been in had the defendant done nothing” … . * * *

… [T]he record on appeal clearly shows … that despite defendants’ delay in calling the police, a period of at least thirty minutes elapsed from the time the police entered the hotel and decedent jumped from the ledge in the police officer’s presence. Beadell v Eros Mgt. Reality, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02496, First De[t 5-7-24

Practice Point: A landowner or leaseholder in control of a hotel is not an insurer of a hotel guest’s safety and does not owe a duty of care to hotel guests absent the assumption of a duty to act (not the case here where a hotel guest committed suicide).

Practice Point: The expert opinion evidence here fell short of demonstrating that hotel staff’s delay in calling the police at the request of decedent’s family was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide.

 

, , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging the New York City public school system discriminates against Black and Latinx students and seeking injunctive relief was justiciable and stated valid causes of action. Therefore the complaint, which had been dismissed, is now reinstated. The opinion is comprehensive and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs allege that State and City policies create a “racialized” admission pipeline. According to plaintiffs, the pipeline begins with a single standardized test for the City’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) programs taken by children as young as four-years-old. The G&T test, plaintiffs assert, disproportionately benefits “privileged” white students and their “in-the-know” parents, who have the “navigational capital” to understand the admissions process and the economic capital to pay for expensive test preparation. The G&T programs, plaintiffs allege, provide superior academic preparation, which allows primarily white and Asian students to continue through the pipeline to academically screened middle and high schools, relegating Black and Latinx students to unscreened schools, often in poorly maintained buildings with limited extracurricular programs. The end of the pipeline, or “zenith” as plaintiffs describe it, is admission to one of eight New York City specialized high schools based on the results of the Special High School Admissions Test (the SHSAT).* * *

The pipeline, plaintiffs claim, is designed to exclude Black and Latinx students from the City’s prime educational opportunities. According to plaintiffs, the State and the City “intentionally adopted” and “for decades have intentionally retained—with no pedagogical basis—testing-based sorting that they know excludes students of color from equal educational opportunities.” This knowledge was acquired, plaintiffs allege, “through decades of experience and reflected in [defendants] own admissions” including the knowledge of the public school system’s “racist character and outcomes.” Despite this knowledge, plaintiffs allege that the State and the City “intentionally refuse to dismantle . . . its racialized channeling system.” IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02369, First Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s conclusion that the suit seeking injunctive relief from discriminatory education policies and procedures in the New York City public school system was not “justiciable” was rejected.

 

,

AFTER PLAINTIFF’S POST-NOTE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE NONPARTY WITNESS WAS QUASHED, PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT FROM THE NONPARTY WITNESS; OBTAINING THE STATEMENT WAS A PROPER METHOD OF “INFORMAL DISCOVERY” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff properly conducted “informal discovery” by obtaining a voluntary statement from a nonparty witness after plaintiff’s post-note deposition subpoena for the witness was quashed:

Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to quash the untimely, post-note deposition subpoena plaintiff served on nonparty witness Harris-Aikens, and to preclude plaintiff from “examining or otherwise taking any sworn testimony from” Harris-Aikens (the December Order), and suspended disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3103(b). …

… [T]he Harris-Aikens witness statement did not constitute “disclosure of the particular matter in dispute” prohibited by CPLR 3103(b). The statement was not an examination or other sworn testimony explicitly prohibited by the December Order, and was not otherwise an enumerated “disclosure device” under CPLR 3102(a) … . Rather, obtaining the witness statement was plaintiff’s proper exercise of ex parte, informal discovery, which the Court of Appeals has long recognized as a permissible and invaluable avenue by which litigants prepare for trial … . Everett v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02276, First Dept 4-30-24

Practice Point: Obtaining a voluntary statement from a nonparty witness here did not violate the court order quashing a deposition subpoena for the same witness. The voluntary statement was a proper form of “informal discovery.”

 

,

THERE WAS NO RECORD DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED OF THE JURY NOTE AND NO RECORD THE JUDGE RESPONDED TO THE NOTE, A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTE REFERRED ONLY TO ONE COUNT, THE THREE COUNTS WERE FACTUALLY CONNECTED REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the absence of a record indicating defense counsel was notified of a note from the jury, or even that the judge responded to the note, was a mode of proceedings error. The People’s argument that the note addressed only one count of the indictment and the convictions on the other counts should survive was rejected. The nature of the jury’s question was relevant to all counts:

The fourth note stated: “We the jury request to hear the judge’s reading of count 1, including definitions and detail. Further, can you please confirm if it is up to our determination to decide if something is considered as “course of conduct” and “act”? As written on the verdict sheet, count 1 states “engaging in a course off conduct,” we want to confirm if this is a typo or not.” * * *

When an O’Rama error occurs, the question of whether the error in the proceedings related to some charges requires reversal on the other charges is determined on a case-by-case basis, with ‘due regard’ for the facts of the case, the nature of the error, and the ‘potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome’ … .

Here, the three counts of the indictment were alleged to arise from a course or repetition of conduct in violation of the order of protection reasonably perceived as threatening to the victim’s safety (count 1), through means both electronic/written (count 2) and telephonic (count 3). Thus, given the underlying factual relationship between the crimes, defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Jamison, 2024 NY Slip Op 02286, First Dept 4-30-24

Practice Point: If the record is silent about whether counsel was notified of a jury note and whether the judge even responded to the note, that is a mode of proceedings error.

Practice Point: Although the jury note related to only one of the three counts, the convictions on the other two counts could not survive because all the counts were factually connected.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant carpet and flooring subcontractor’s (S&’s) request to inspect the area of the building where plaintiff stepped into a vent hole from which a cover had been dislodged should not have been denied. Although the vent cover had been replaced, it could not be said for certain that an inspection would be fruitless:

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.” The Court of Appeals has directed that the phrase “material and necessary” in this statute should be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . Under this standard, S&F is entitled to inspect the site of the incident giving rise to plaintiff’s allegedly serious injuries.

While the replacement of the … cover might reduce the likelihood that a site inspection will produce evidence useful to S&S’s defense, it does not make it certain that an inspection will be useless. … It is for S&F, not its adversary, to determine whether the inspection of the site of the accident is sufficiently likely to produce relevant information to be worth S&F’s time and effort. … . …

… [A] court’s power to limit otherwise proper use of a disclosure device should be exercised only for the purpose of avoiding “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.”

We fail to see how an inspection of the site of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit would impose on plaintiff, or on anyone else, any of the burdens enumerated by CPLR 3103(a) to an “unreasonable” extent. Balsamello v Structure Tone, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02251, First Dept 4-25-24

Practice Point: An inspection by defendant of the area where plaintiff was injured should be allowed absent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY WARRANTING CIVIL MANAGEMENT, THE JUDGE CONFLATED TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS, ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE PROVEN BY A CONSTELLATION OF CONDITIONS, DISEASES AND DISORDERS, AND IMPROPERLY RELIED ON OUTSIDE RESEARCH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined several errors by the judge in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding tainted the judge’s finding that the state had not proven respondent sex offender suffered from a mental abnormality and required civil management:

This article 10 proceeding arose out of respondent Richard V.’s 2002 conviction of rape in the first degree. In October 2001, respondent and an accomplice posed as plumbers to gain entry to the apartment of a female acquaintance. After the woman brought them inside, respondent subdued her with pepper spray, restrained her, repeatedly attacked her, threatened to kill her, and twice violently raped her.* * *

The sole issue at the bench trial was whether respondent suffers from a mental abnormality that “predisposes [him] to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense” resulting in “having serious difficulty [] controlling such conduct” … . At the second stage of an article 10 proceeding — the dispositional phase — the standard is whether a respondent has “such an inability to control his behavior that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” …

There can be little dispute that Supreme Court conflated the applicable legal standards. * * *

… Supreme Court committed reversible error in finding that the State could not use a “constellation” of conditions, diseases, and disorders to establish that respondent has a mental abnormality. * * *

Supreme Court’s extensive usage of outside research blurred the lines between the roles of judge and counsel, depriving the parties of the opportunity to respond … . Matter of State of New York v Richard V., 2024 NY Slip Op 02158, First Dept 4-23-24

Practice Point: When a judge does outside research to inform the decision, the parties are deprived of the opportunity to respond.

 

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