You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Although “Imprudent” in Hindsight, ​Insurer Did Not Breach Duty of Good Faith by Refusing to Offer a Settlement at the Policy Limit

The First Department determined the insurer’s failure to make a settlement offer at the policy limit was “imprudent” in hindsight, but did not constitute a breach of its duty of good faith:

We reject plaintiffs’ argument that defendant avoided acknowledging the underlying plaintiff’s potential damages such that a refusal to offer the policy limit constituted a reckless or conscious disregard of the excess insurer’s rights. While there was some indication that damages could be significant if the medical records substantiated the underlying plaintiff’s claim of a loss of smell from a severe blow to the head, the record established that defendant’s investigation presented a great deal of medical evidence tending to show that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries were primarily preexisting soft tissue injuries unrelated to the automobile accident on April 24, 1994. Defendant’s investigation included the medical opinion of four physicians that conducted independent medical examinations; one psychologist who conducted a review of the extensive medical records; experienced defense counsel; and separate monitoring counsel for the damages trial. The review of the numerous medical records, which included contradicting evaluations of the underlying plaintiff’s treating physicians, provided a justifiable basis to fairly evaluate potential damages and assess the relative risks of declining to offer a settlement of the policy limit.

Given this evaluation, defendant’s actions do not amount to bad faith. In hindsight, it is evident that defendant’s failure to make a settlement offer of the policy limit was not prudent. However, “[a]n insurer does not breach its duty of good faith when it makes a mistake in judgment or behaves negligently” … . Here, the assessment of the insured’s exposure and the failure to make a settlement offer of the policy limit was a mistake in judgment. It does not demonstrate that defendant acted in bad faith by failing to heed contrary evidence. Instead, the record shows defendant’s reasonable belief that, under the No Fault Law, the underlying plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury causally related to the accident. Thus, we find that the record does not demonstrate any pattern of reckless or conscious disregard for plaintiffs’ rights.  General Motors Acceptance Corp v New York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02384, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

Aeration Tank Constituted an Unventilated Confined Area Requiring Air Quality Monitoring

The First Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under Labor Law 241(6) based upon his inhalation of toxic fumes inside an aeration tank, finding the tank constituted an unventilated confined area requiring air quality monitoring:

The court properly denied the portion of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claim as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g). We find that, as a matter of law, the aeration tank is an unventilated confined area requiring air quality monitoring … . Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g), the atmosphere of an unventilated confined area must be monitored “where dangerous air contaminants may be present or where there may not be sufficient oxygen to support life.” Here, the cement tank is a large container used to aerate and clean sewage. Entering the tank poses a potential hazard since, as admitted by a deputy superintendent for the DEP in his deposition, a person could experience oxygen depletion as gases “displace the oxygen.” Defendants contend that in order for an area to be a confined space, as defined by 12 NYCRR 12-1.3(f), it must have a restricted means of access, such as a trap door or a manhole. We reject this argument. An area does not need to be accessible only by a narrow opening in order to have a “restricted means of egress” (12 NYCRR 12-1.3[f]). Although the top of the tank was open to the air, access was still restricted as [plaintiff] needed to use a 20-foot ladder to enter and exit the tank. Therefore, given the tank’s use in the process of filtering sewage and its restricted means of access, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g) is applicable.  Cerverizzo v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02385, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

, ,

Penalty Which Effectively Made It Impossible for an Architect to Practice His Profession Too Severe

The First Department found the punishment imposed by the Department of Buildings (DOB) on an architect for falsely representing he was licensed during a six-month suspension from practice was too severe:

…[W]e find that the penalty imposed is excessive upon considering the following factors: DOB did not place any temporal limitation on the prohibition of petitioner filing documents, nor did it explain why such a permanent penalty was imposed; petitioner is a solo practitioner for whom over ninety percent of his business is in New York City; the prohibition applies to the entire city, and would essentially end petitioner’s independent architectural business, thus depriving him of his livelihood; and respondent has never alleged, much less made any showing, that the falsehood at issue pertained to the substance or content of the building plans and thus presented potential safety risks which Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-211.1.2 was designed to address… . Matter of Benlevi v New York City Dept of Bldgs, 2014 NY Slip Op 02396, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

,

Failure to Challenge Conviction Rendered Invalid by Not Advising Defendant of the Period of Post Release Supervision [PRS] Constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The First Department determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel when he was sentenced as a predicate felony offender.  Counsel failed to challenge a 2000 conviction upon a guilty plea which was invalid because defendant was not apprised of the period of post release supervision (PRS) which was subsequently imposed. The fact that the PRS was later removed from the sentence did not cure the error because the defendant had already served four years of PRS and had spent time in jail for a violation of supervision:

In connection with the 2000 conviction, Supreme Court, New York County added postrelease supervision to the sentence in 2009 to cure an unlawful administrative imposition of PRS … . In May, 2010 that court removed PRS from the sentence in accordance with People v Williams (14 NY3d 198 [2010]). Contrary to the People’s sole argument on appeal addressing the Catu issue [the initial failure to advise defendant of the period of post release supervision], the vacatur of defendant’s PRS could not cure the Catu error, or give defendant the benefit of his plea, since at the time of the vacatur he had already served four years of PRS, and had also spent time in jail in violation of that supervision. …

In connection with the instant CPL 440.20 motion [motion to vacate the sentence], the attorney who represented defendant at his 2010 persistent violent felony offender adjudication and sentencing acknowledged that he had no strategic reason for failing to challenge the 2000 conviction, and that he never inquired into whether defendant had been advised about PRS at his 2000 plea proceeding. He further affirmed that had he been aware that the conviction was obtained in violation of Catu, he would have in fact challenged its use to enhance defendant’s sentence in this case. Thus, this was not a case where an attorney may have reasonably believed that it would have been futile to raise a Catu issue regarding the constitutionality, for predicate felony purposes, of defendant’s 2000 conviction, or that the law was unclear on this issue… .  People v Fagan, 2014 NY Slip Op 02344, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

,

Defense Counsel Did Not Provide Effective Assistance

The First Department determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.  Counsel did not object to inadmissible hearsay which corroborated the complainant’s testimony, counsel did not subpoena medical records or call a medical expert despite proof at the first trial the evidence of complainant’s injury was unsupported, and counsel did not impeach the complainant by confronting her with her prior inconsistent statements:

in a case that depended heavily on the credibility of the complainant, counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony indicating that several unnamed out-of-court declarants supported the complainant’s version of the incident. These bystander statements were not admissible under any theory, and we reject the People’s arguments to the contrary. These declarations did not qualify as excited utterances, and, under the circumstances of the case, they were not admissible as background information to complete the narrative and explain police actions. At a prior trial, at which defendant was represented by different counsel, and which ended in a hung jury, the content of these declarations was not placed in evidence.

We are unable to discern any strategic basis for counsel’s failure to object to this highly prejudicial hearsay evidence. Any benefit that defendant may have gained when his counsel attempted to suggest that a police witness fabricated the existence of the bystander declarations was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial effect of having the jury hear the declarations in the first place. Defendant had nothing to lose, and much to gain, by keeping the declarations completely out of the case. Furthermore, the trial record reveals that counsel was unaware, and apparently surprised, that the content of these declarations was not in evidence at the first trial. This tends to suggest that counsel’s failure to object had nothing to do with strategy. People v Ugweches, 2014 NY Slip Op 02333, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

Two Dissenting Justices Found Defendant’s Sentence Excessive Under the Facts

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, found that the defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Reform Act was properly denied.  The decision is notable for the dissents, which forcefully argued defendant’s sentence was harsh and excessive in light of all the facts. People v Lovett, 2014 NY Slip Op 02329, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

Questioning of Witnesses by Trial Judge Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, determined that the participation of the judge in the questioning of witnesses did not rise to the level of depriving the defendant of a fair trial:

The guarantee of a fair trial does not “inhibit a Trial Judge from assuming an active role in the resolution of the truth” … . Thus, a trial judge is permitted “to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of the trial,” and, if necessary, to develop factual information … . However, a judge may not “take [] on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial” … .

The “substance and not the number of questions asked is the important consideration” … . Even if a trial judge makes intrusive remarks that would better have been left unsaid, or questions witnesses extensively, the defendant is not thereby deprived of a fair trial so long as the jury is “not prevented from arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits” … . Notably, although the exercise of a trial court’s power to question witnesses should be exercised “sparingly” …, “in the case of expert testimony, the court’s intervention is often necessary to assist the jurors in comprehending matters of specialized knowledge” … , and the trial judge is afforded greater leeway.

The record before us establishes that the trial court did not take on the function and appearance of an advocate. * * *

Furthermore, although it is true that a “claim that the intrusion of the Trial Judge deprived [the defendant] of his constitutional right to a fair trial is not subject to harmless error analysis” …, the strength or weakness of the evidence may be considered as a factor in determining whether the defendant received a fair trial … .  People v Adams, 2014 NY Slip Op 02349, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

Lost Profits Not Recoverable—Too Speculative and Not Contemplated in the Agreement

The First Department determined the agreement between the parties did not contemplate lost profits and, therefore, lost profits could not be awarded as damages for the breach:

Nevertheless, the court properly concluded that [plaintiff] was not entitled to recover lost profits. To the extent [plaintiff] seeks lost profits for a five-year period, such damages are speculative, as its assumption that it would have remained in contract with [defendant] for five years could not be established with reasonable certainty. To the extent it seeks lost profits in the amount of $1 million for 2010 (i.e., $500,000 for two seasons), such lost profits were not within the contemplation of the parties as a probable result of a breach at the time they entered into the agreement and could not be established with reasonable certainty … . The evidence surrounding the negotiation and execution of the contract does not show that the parties expected [defendant] to bear the responsibility for any lost profits sustained by [plaintiff]. Indeed, all the witnesses acknowledged that sales revenue of $500,000 per season was mere expectation, and [defendant’s] principal testified that he would not guarantee minimum sales in his sales agreements, especially with emerging designers, as there were “too many variables involved in procuring success in sales in our very competitive and fickle industry.” Such evidence undermines the conclusion that the parties contemplated that [defendant] would assume liability for [plaintiff’s] loss of anticipated revenue … . Olsenhaus Pure Vegan LLC v Electric Wonderland Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02343, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

, ,

​Monetary Award to Compensate Fraud Victims Ordered by a Czech Court in a Criminal Fraud Prosecution Entitled to Enforcement in New York as a “Foreign Country Judgment”

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined a judgment in a Czech criminal proceeding ordering a monetary award to compensate fraud victims was entitled to recognition in New York pursuant to CPLR 5301(b) (a matter of first impression):

CPLR 5301(b) defines a “foreign country judgment” as “any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, other than a judgment for taxes, a fine or other penalty, or a judgment for support in matrimonial or family matters.” The judgment sought to be enforced in this case provides restitution …, directing … the criminal defendant, to pay a specific sum as “compensation for damages to the victim” of his scheme to defraud. Clearly, the judgment is not one for taxes or support obligations; nor is it a fine. Thus, the question is whether a judgment providing compensation to a crime victim (here, a victim of criminal fraud) should be regarded as a “penalty” and denied enforcement.

Where, as here, the purpose of a monetary judgment is to compensate the victim for actual damages, it represents “reparation to one aggrieved” … . Harvardsky Prumyslovy Holding AS -V Likvidaci v Kozeny, 2014 NY Slip Op 02250, 1st Dept 4-1-14

 

Inconsistent Responses to Special-Verdict Interrogatories Required Resubmission to the Jury or a New Trial

The First Department determined the trial judge, faced with inconsistent answers to the special verdict interrogatories, should have either resubmitted the interrogatories or ordered a new trial:

The jury’s responses to the second and third interrogatories are not only in direct conflict with one another, but puzzling given the jury charge. The trial court instructed the jury that “if you find all of the agreed-upon services have been performed, then the [p]laintiff is entitled to recover the fee agreed upon or such part of that fee as you find remains unpaid.” In light of these instructions, the jury’s finding that defendant is obligated to pay plaintiff, even though plaintiff did not perform its obligations under the contract, is “logically impossible” …. .As the verdict was inconsistent, pursuant to CPLR 4111(c), the court was obligated to either resubmit the interrogatories to the jury or order a new trial … . The trial court “engaged in improper speculation as to the jury’s thought process” by attempting to reconcile the jury’s answers with the evidence …, based upon a theory that was not part of the jury’s findings. … The trial court should have required the jury to reconsider the interrogatories or order a new trial, even though defense counsel did not request, on the record, that the verdict be resubmitted to the jury… . Bellinson Law, LLC v Iannucci, 2014 NY Slip Op 02219, 1st Dept 4-1-14

 

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