You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Court Must Make a Youthful Offender Determination Even When Defendant Waives It

The First Department noted that the sentencing court must consider youthful offender treatment for every eligible youth even where the defendant waives the youthful offender determination as part of a negotiated plea:

…[T]he Court of Appeals in People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]) that CPL 720.20(1) requires “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” requires a new sentencing proceeding. Although defendant pleaded guilty to an armed felony, he was potentially eligible under CPL 720.10(3), and he was thus entitled to a determination … . This issue survives defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal … . People v Malcolm, 2014 NY Slip Op 04050, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract

The First Department determined there a question of fact about defendant’s negligence and the related applicability of the doctrine of mutual mistake. The parties orally agreed to share funeral expenses and commence a lost will proceeding based upon the understanding that the original will could not be found.  However, the original will was subsequently found.  The defendant moved to rescind the contract on the basis of mutual mistake and Supreme Court granted the motion.  In reversing, the First Department noted the doctrine of mutual mistake would not be available if defendant were negligent in initially failing to find the will, and a question of fact had been raised about defendant’s negligence in that regard:

Plaintiff met her obligations under the agreement to pay one half of the decedent’s funeral expenses and attorneys fees for the proceeding. Defendant did, as required, commence a lost will proceeding. Both parties thus fulfilled the terms of the oral agreement. It was only less than one month before the hearing on the lost will proceeding was to commence that defendant’s husband found the original will in the same box which defendant had searched prior to entering into the agreement. It was at that point that defendant attempted to abrogate the contract. It is noteworthy that defendant, in her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint argued that the contract should be rescinded due to a mutual mistake as to the existence of the original will. The question of mutual mistake, therefore, is central to the disposition of this case.

Defendant’s alleged negligence in searching for the original 1991 will, the absence of which formed the basis of the oral agreement to commence a lost will proceeding, is an important factor in determining whether the doctrine of mutual mistake may be invoked to rescind this otherwise valid oral agreement. ” Mistake, to be available in equity, must not have arisen from negligence, where the means of knowledge were easily accessible.'” … . The doctrine of mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . Gitelson v Quinn, 2014 NY Slip Op 03942, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

, ,

State and City Human Rights Law Retaliation Claims Were Not Precluded by Dismissal of Federal Retaliation Claims Pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act—Different Protected Activities Involved

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined plaintiff’s state and city human rights law retaliation claims against her employer were not precluded by the dismissal of her federal action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue clearly raised and decided against that party in a prior action … . To successfully invoke this doctrine, two requirements must be met. First, the issue in the second action must be identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action. Second, the party to be precluded must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action … . Where a federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims, collateral estoppel can still bar those claims provided that the federal court decided issues identical to those raised by the plaintiff’s state claims … . The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing identity of issue … . Applying these principles, we conclude that defendants have not met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s state and city claims of retaliatory termination are barred by collateral estoppel. The retaliation claims asserted here are entirely distinct from those raised and decided in the federal action. There, the court only decided whether plaintiff was retaliated against for exercising her FMLA rights. Here, however, plaintiff does not claim retaliation based on her exercise of FMLA rights, but instead alleges retaliation, under the State and City Human Rights Laws, based on entirely different instances of protected activity. Specifically, plaintiff alleges she was discharged for filing a written complaint about her reprimand for allegedly reading a book during work hours, and for verbally complaining about an alleged inappropriate comment. Because the federal court’s decision did not address either of these claimed bases for retaliation, it cannot be said that the federal action “necessarily decided” the same issues raised by the State and City retaliation claims, and thus collateral estoppel does not apply… .  Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 03961, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

, ,

In this Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, Causes of Action Not Subject to the “Internal Affairs” Doctrine Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The First Department determined many of the causes of action in this shareholder derivative suit were not governed by Bermuda law under the “internal affairs” doctrine and, therefore, should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiffs — minority shareholders of Culligan Ltd. — bring this derivative action on behalf of that entity, a Bermuda company that does business in New York. Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss upon finding that Bermuda law applied to the case pursuant to the “internal affairs” doctrine. That doctrine “recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs — matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders”  Since the internal affairs doctrine does not apply to those defendants who are not current officers, directors, and shareholders of Culligan Ltd. … Bermuda law does not apply to claims asserted against them.

Nor does the internal affairs doctrine apply to claims based on sections of the Business Corporation Law (BCL) enumerated in BCL §§ 1317 and 1319. BCL § 1319(a)(1) expressly provides that BCL § 626 (shareholders’ derivative action) shall apply to a foreign corporation doing business in New York. Thus, the issue of plaintiffs’ standing to bring a shareholder derivative action is governed by New York law, not Bermuda law … . …

Pursuant to German-American Coffee Co. v Diehl (216 NY 57, 62-64 [1915]) and BCL §§ 1319(a)(1), 719(a)(1), and 510, New York law applies to the second cause of action, which alleges that the directors of Culligan Ltd. declared illegal dividends.

To the extent plaintiffs allege violations of BCL § 720 (e.g. waste and unlawful conveyance), which is made applicable to foreign corporations doing business in New York by BCL § 1317(a)(2), those claims are also governed by New York law … . However, to the extent plaintiffs allege a violation of a section of the Business Corporation Law not enumerated in BCL § 1317 (e.g. § 717, which is part of plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim), New York law does not apply … . Those claims are governed by Bermuda law …, and were thus correctly dismissed. Culligan Soft Water Co v Clayton Dubilier & Rice LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03955, 1st Dept 6-3-14

 

Motion to Compel Discovery in Class Action Suit Erroneously Denied—“Full Disclosure” Criteria Explained

The First Department determined the motion court erred when it denied plaintiffs-intervenors' motion to compel the defendants to disclose documents in a class action suit.  The suit was brought on behalf of children with developmental disabilities against the NYC Administration for Children's Services and the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities.  Any privacy-related issues could be handled by redaction:

Under CPLR 3101(a), “full disclosure” is required for “all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court of Appeals has held that “material and necessary” is “to be interpreted liberally,” and that the test of whether matter should be disclosed is “one of usefulness and reason” … . City of New York  Maul, 2014 NY Slip Op 03941, 1st Dept 6-3-14

 

To Demonstrate “Defamation by Implication” Where the Factual Statements Are Substantially True, It Must Be Shown the Communication as a Whole Imparts a Defamatory Inference and the Author Intended or Endorsed the Defamatory Inference

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, the First Department adopted criteria for determining whether a publication is defamatory by implication.  The subject of the case was a published magazine article describing a conspiracy in Russia involving hundreds of millions in illicit funds.  The plaintiffs alleged that the article defamed them by implying involvement in the conspiracy. The First Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and adopted a standard which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate the defamatory inference of the substantially true statements, as well as that the author intended or endorsed that inference:

“Defamation by implication is premised not on direct statements but on false suggestions, impressions and implications arising from otherwise truthful statements” … . The implied defamation cause of action was recognized by the Court of Appeals in a 1963 decision determining that, although the publication at issue contained no directly defamatory statements, “a jury should decide whether a libelous intendment would naturally be given to it by the reading public acquainted with the parties and the subject-matter” … . The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254 [1964]) found that the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution placed substantial limits on the right to recover for defamatory statements … . In a 1977 libel decision, after discussing the impact Sullivan had on defamation jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals addressed an aspect of the plaintiff’s claim that was akin to implied defamation, noting that although an author “could not make up facts out of whole cloth, omission of relatively minor details in an otherwise basically accurate account is not actionable. This is largely a matter of editorial judgment in which the courts, and juries, have no proper function” … . * * *

“[I]f a communication, viewed in its entire context, merely conveys materially true facts from which a defamatory inference can reasonably be drawn, the libel is not established. But if the communication, by the particular manner or language in which the true facts are conveyed, supplies additional, affirmative evidence suggesting that the defendant intends or endorses the defamatory inference, the communication will be deemed capable of bearing that meaning” … .

…[T]his inquiry requires “an especially rigorous showing”: the “language must not only be reasonably read to impart the false innuendo, but it must also affirmatively suggest that the author intends or endorses the inference”… . * * *

… To survive a motion to dismiss a claim for defamation by implication where the factual statements at issue are substantially true, the plaintiff must make a rigorous showing that the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference. We believe this rule strikes the appropriate balance between a plaintiff’s right to recover in tort for statements that defame by implication and a defendant’s First Amendment protection for publishing substantially truthful statements… . Stepanov v Dow Jones & Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03940, 1st Dept 5-29-14

 

,

English Judgment Enforceable by New York Courts Without Demonstration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Ownership of Property in New York

The First Department determined a judgment rendered in England was enforceable by New York courts without any need to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying matter or the ownership of property in New York.  In addition, the court noted that the imposition of post-judgment interest on the foreign judgment by New York courts was found appropriate:

…New York adopted the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act as CPLR article 53 …, which was intended to codify and clarify existing case law applicable to the recognition of foreign country money judgments based on principles of international comity, “and, more importantly, to promote the efficient enforcement of New York judgments abroad by assuring foreign jurisdictions that their judgments would receive streamlined enforcement here” … .

Generally, a foreign country judgment is “conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money” (CPLR 5303), “unless a ground for nonrecognition under CPLR 5304 is applicable” … . CPLR 5304(a) provides that “[a]; foreign country judgment is not conclusive if the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law” (subd [1]) or “the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant” (subd [2]). CPLR 5304(b) permits nonrecognition on eight other grounds. Significantly, “in proceeding under article 53, the judgment creditor does not seek any new relief against the judgment debtor, but instead merely asks the court to perform its ministerial function of recognizing the foreign country money judgment and converting it into a New York judgment” … . Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Saad Trading, 2014 NY Slip Op 03767, 1st Dept 5-27-14

 

Verdict Properly Set Aside—Theory of Liability Alleged at Trial Altered the Theory of Liability Alleged in Notice of Claim

The First Department determined a plaintiff’s verdict was properly set aside because the theory of liability advanced at trial differed from that described in the Notice of Claim:

The trial court correctly set aside the jury’s verdict because the evidence presented at trial substantially altered the theory of liability set forth in the notice of claim. While the change of location of the accident was not itself substantive, we find the additional testimony, i.e., that the decedent’s injuries were caused by Lewis’ failure to stop at a stop sign or a blinking red light, was not alleged in the notice of claim, and thereby substantially altered the nature of the claim. Further, plaintiff’s time to amend the notice of claim to assert that theory has expired (see General Municipal Law § 50-i[1]…). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendants were not required to demonstrate that their investigation was prejudiced, because plaintiff never sought to amend her notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6)… . Davis v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 03743, 1st Dept 5-22-14

 

,

The Availability of Pre-Suit Discovery in a Shareholder Derivative Action is a Substantive, Not a Procedural, Issue—The Law in the State Where the Corporation Is Chartered Controls

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, determined the law surrounding a corporation’s refusal to answer a pre-suit discovery demand in a purported shareholder derivative action is a matter of substantive law, not procedural law.  Therefore, under New York choice of law rules, the law of Delaware, where the corporation was chartered, applied.  Under Delaware law “plaintiffs in a derivative sure are not entitled to discovery to assist their compliance with the particularized pleading requirement … in the case of a demand refusal.”  The motion to compel discovery was properly denied and the motion to dismiss the amended complaint was properly granted.   Lerner v Prince, 2014 NY Slip Op 03763, 1st Dept 5-22-14

 

,

Loss of Small Portion of Stenographic Record Did Not Require Reversal

The First Department noted that the loss of some of the stenographic minutes of a trial did not require reversal. The trial court had conducted a reconstruction hearing:

The loss of a relatively small portion of the stenographic record does not require reversal of defendants’ convictions … . The court conducted a reconstruction hearing at which various participants in the trial presented their recollections, to the extent possible, of the brief portions of the trial for which minutes are not available. When viewed in light of the presumption of regularity (id. at 796), the facts adduced at the reconstruction hearing regarding the missing pages support an inference that the missing minutes would not have revealed any significant appellate issues. People v Negron, 2014 NY Slip Op 03752, 1st Dept 5-22-14

 

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