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
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
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
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
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
The First Department, over a dissent, determined street-sweeping vehicles, at the time of the accident in 2010, were not “hazard vehicles” exempted from the rules of the road under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (apparently, under the Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation, street-sweeping vehicles are now so exempt:)
…Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b), which exempts “hazard vehicles” from the rules of the road and limits the liability of their owners and operators to reckless disregard for the safety of others …, does not apply to the New York City street-sweeping vehicle involved in the collision with plaintiff’s vehicle that gave rise to this action. Therefore, defendants are subject to the ordinary negligence standard of liability, not the reckless disregard standard on which their motion was based. At the time of the accident, in 2010, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) was superseded by Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-02, which excepted street sweepers, among others, from compliance with traffic rules to the limited extent of making such turns and proceeding in such directions as were necessary to perform their operations (34 RCNY 4-02[d][1][iii][A]). While subparagraph (iv) contained a broader exception, expressly invoking Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, we find that subparagraph (iv) did not include street sweepers because that would have rendered subparagraph (iii) redundant and meaningless. Indeed, when 34 RCNY 4-02 was amended, in 2013, the City Council explained in its “Statement of Basis and Purpose” that the effect of the adopted rule would be “that operators of DOT and New York City Department of Sanitation snow plows, sand/salt spreaders and sweepers will now be subject to the general exemption set forth in subparagraph (iv) of that same subsection” (emphasis added) a strong indication that they were not so subject before then. Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 02221, 1st Dept 4-1-14
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, the First Department determined the terms of the contract between a gallery and an artist (Scher) designated the gallery as the artist’s agent with respect to prints created from the artist’s original works. Therefore, the artist was the owner of the prints. In addition, the court determined, under the General Obligations Law, the terms of a written contract were not changed by an alleged oral agreement:
…[S]ection 1 of the 2005 agreement (“Scope of Agency”) expressly provides that Scher was appointing the Gallery “to act as [her] exclusive agent . . . for the exhibition and sales of . . . limited edition prints published exclusively by [the] [G]allery,” among other kinds of artwork, for the duration of the agreement. Thus, when the Gallery commissioned the printer to produce the prints, paid the printer for the prints, and took delivery of the prints, it did so as Scher’s agent and, hence, fiduciary … . Accordingly, the prints must be deemed to be Scher’s property… . …
As Scher’s fiduciary, the Gallery was obligated to disclose to her in plain terms all material facts within the scope of the agency, obviously including any understanding the Gallery had, upon entering with Scher into the oral print deal, that it would own the prints and any intention it entertained to treat the prints as its own property … . If the Gallery did not wish to finance the production of prints that it would not own, it could have sought to reach an agreement with Scher specifying that prints made at the Gallery’s expense would be the Gallery’s property. Alternatively, if the Gallery merely wished to protect itself from being abruptly terminated as Scher’s agent before it had a fair chance to sell the prints, it could have sought to reach an agreement with her on a minimum time-period it would have to sell each batch of prints during which the agency could not be terminated without cause. Instead, the Gallery left itself exposed by going forward with the print deal based on only a vague, unwritten agreement that left nearly all of the terms up in the air except for the basic 90/10 split of sales revenue (and even as to that, there is a dispute as to whether Scher’s cut is calculated based on gross or net sales). We see no reason to relieve a fiduciary, such as this professional art merchant, of the consequences of its own carelessness in dealing with its principal. Scher v Stendhal Gallery Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02154, 1st Dept 3-27-14
The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have declared that the NYC Industrial Development Agency’s [IDA’s] issuance of a negative declaration (finding no further environmental review necessary for a project in the Bronx) violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). In so finding, the First Department explained the criteria for court review in this context:
“‘[J]udicial review of a SEQRA determination is limited to determining whether the challenged determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or was the product of a violation of lawful procedure'” …. “[T]he courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives'” … .
Our review of the record establishes that the determination of IDA not to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SEIS) was not affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion … . Likewise, the record reflects that, as the lead agency, IDA identified the relevant areas of environmental concern related to the proposed action (including traffic, air quality and noise impact), took the requisite “hard look” at them and, in its negative declaration, set forth a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination that a SEIS [Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement] was not required … . Thus, Supreme Court should have declared that IDA’s issuance of a negative declaration did not violate SEQRA, was not arbitrary and capricious, and was not an abuse of discretion. Matter of South Bronx Unitd! v New York City Indus Dev Agency, 2014 NY Slip 02132, 1st Dept 3-27-14
The First Department determined the termination of a teacher’s employment was a punishment which “shocked one’s sense of fairness.” The teacher, who was well-respected and had an unblemished record, was found to have engaged in sexual conduct with an adult colleague in the school building after hours. The incident was highly publicized. In finding the punishment too severe, the court wrote:
“[A] result is shocking to one’s sense of fairness if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the derelictions of the individuals. Additional factors would be the prospect of deterrence of the individual or of others in like situations, and therefore a reasonable prospect of recurrence of derelictions by the individual or persons similarly employed. There is also the element that the sanctions reflect the standards of society to be applied to the offense involved” … . * * *
While petitioner’s behavior demonstrated a lapse in judgment, there is no evidence that this incident, was anything but a one-time mistake … . Of critical significance is that, unlike matters involving some form of romantic involvement or other inappropriate conduct with a student, petitioner’s engaging in what appeared to be consensual sexual conduct with an adult colleague is not in and of itself either criminal or otherwise improper. * * *
Nor is there is any indication in the record that petitioner’s conduct will affect her ability to teach or that she intended to inflict any damage on any student. While it is unfortunate that the incident garnered so much attention and was exploited in the media, that in and of itself does not warrant the penalty of termination … . Matter of Brito v Walcott, 2014 NY Slip Op 01813, 1st Dept 3-20-14
Although the error was deemed harmless, the First Department determined hearsay statements should have been redacted from the plaintiff’s medical records. The plaintiff alleged the police had pushed him over a fence, causing injury. The defendants alleged plaintiff jumped. The medical records included references to the plaintiff’s “jumping.” The jury found for the defendants. The court explained how hearsay in a medical report should be handled:
Hearsay entries regarding the cause of an injury contained in a medical record come into evidence under the business records exception if they are germane to the treatment or diagnosis of plaintiff’s injuries … . Alternatively, the entry may be admissible as an admission, but only if there is evidence that connects the party to the entry … . The challenged entries were neither germane to treatment or diagnosis, nor were they admissions.
There was simply no evidence supporting defendants’ position that the medical doctors needed to know whether plaintiff jumped or was pushed from the fence in order for doctors to determine what medical testing he needed upon admission to the hospital. No medical expert provided such testimony … . Defendants’ only expert, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstruction expert, opined that plaintiff’s injuries were consistent with a jump from a height and not a push to a fall. He did not give any opinion on issues relating to treatment or diagnosis. This is not a case where the conclusion is so obvious that no medical testimony is needed to lay the appropriate evidentiary foundation … .
The particular challenged entries cannot be characterized as admissions. Although the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center Admission Assessment form has a box checked that “patient” is the source of the information, the particular entry on that record, “he jumped off the fence,” is not clearly a direct statement attributable to or a quote of plaintiff. The Ambulance Call Report form identifies “PO” or the police officer as the source of the information that plaintiff “jumped off a fence.” No other evidence in the record identifies plaintiff as being the source of this information. Nor is there any evidence connecting plaintiff to the 1/21/97 entry in the Progress Record that “s/p fell from a fence after being chased by police officers” or the 1/23/97 entry “fall from 2 storeys [sic]” to make them admissible as admissions by him. These entries should have been redacted from the medical records received in evidence. Benavides v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 01682, 1st Dept 3-18-14
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy