You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling

The First Department determined defendants were entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the homeowner’s exemption to liability under Labor Law 241(6).  The fact that three unrelated families lived in the home did not negate the finding that the home was a single-family dwelling:

Under the homeowner exemption, “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 241(6). Here, defendants established that the premises was a single-family dwelling by submitting affidavits stating that they purchased the premises solely as a second residence for use by family and guests, that they had never used any of the portion of the premises for a commercial purpose, and that the barn in which plaintiff was injured was being converted into a recreational room for personal use … . Moreover, the affidavits of plaintiff’s employer and supervisor stating that they supervised plaintiff’s work and provided plaintiff with the tools for his work, including the saw that caused his injuries, along with defendants’ affidavits stating that they were not on site during the construction work, show that defendants did not direct, supervise, or control plaintiff’s work… . …

To the extent plaintiff’s affidavit states that three different unrelated families, including defendants’ family, the household staff, and the groundskeeper, lived at the premises, such is insufficient to negate a finding of a single-family dwelling. Under the circumstances presented, defendants and their staff were “living together and maintaining a common household” … . Furthermore, the certificate of occupancy lists all of the buildings under one address, and the alteration work on all of the buildings was covered by one building permit, also listing one address … .  Patino v Drexler, 2014 NY Slip Op 02537, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Brazilian Citizens Had Alternative Legal Remedies and Therefore Could Not Use a Writ of Prohibition to Stop a New York Prosecution/The Fact that the Petitioners Would Have to Come to New York to Employ the Alternative Remedies During the Course of a Criminal Prosecution Did Not Render those Remedies Inadequate

The First Department determined a writ of prohibition could not be employed by Brazilian citizens to stop a prosecution by the district attorney.  Petitioners had other legal remedies including pretrial motions and appeal if convicted.  The fact that petitioners would have to defend the prosecution in New York to use the alternative remedies did not render those remedies inadequate:

In this action for a writ of prohibition directing the DA to stay the prosecution of petitioners, Brazilian citizens (the former mayor of Sao Paolo and his son) who have been indicted in New York for crimes relating to the theft of more than $11 million in Brazilian public funds that were allegedly transferred to petitioners’ account in a bank located in New York, the petition was properly denied. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is not available to petitioners, who assert that the underlying criminal action violates their statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial and their right to due process, or, in the alternative, that the indictment should be dismissed either in furtherance of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40(1) or under principles of international comity. These claims allege errors of law for which petitioners have adequate alternative remedies, including filing pretrial motions in the underlying criminal action and challenging any conviction on appeal … . That petitioners would have to voluntarily leave their home country to appear for arraignment since Brazil will not extradite its own citizens before availing themselves of such remedies does not render them inadequate … . Matter of Naluf v Vance, 2014 NY Slip Op 02546, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Proceedings Pursuant to CPL 440.10 Required to Determine Whether Defense Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Move to Reopen the Suppression Hearing When Trial Evidence Called Into Question the Arresting Officer’s Credibility

The First Department, over a dissent, found that  the trial record was insufficient to determine whether defendant’s counsel was ineffective for failing to ask to reopen a suppression hearing when the trial evidence called into question the arresting officer’s credibility.  The conviction was affirmed without prejudice and the matter was sent back for further proceedings under a motion to vacate the conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10:

The issue of effective assistance of counsel is generally not reviewable on direct appeal, because it involves facts dehors the record, such as trial counsel’s strategy … . Accordingly, a defendant who seeks to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim usually must first expand the record by way of a CPL 440.10 motion before this Court can consider it … . However, there are rare instances where the full record is sufficient to resolve the issue of counsel’s effectiveness without a 440.10 motion … . This is not one of those rare cases.  * * *

The extant record potentially supports a finding that counsel fundamentally misunderstood the necessity of making the motion to reopen the suppression hearing during trial, rather than waiting for a motion to set aside the verdict, in the event of a conviction. Defense counsel’s remarks at sentencing, seemingly prompted by the court’s denial of the motion to set aside the verdict, were a belated attempt to explain counsel’s failure to move to reopen the hearing. Whether defense counsel was effective or not necessarily requires an evaluation of the credibility and logic of the proffered explanation, that defense counsel was afraid he would “lose that jury” and that he believed the witness “was on the ropes.” Although defense counsel may have genuinely been hopeful that the jury would acquit his client, this explanation cannot be accepted at face value. After all, as the trial court’s decision indicates, had defense counsel timely moved to reopen the suppression hearing, the application would have been granted, and the court could have quickly ruled upon it while giving the jury a short recess. The “witness” referred to was the arresting officer, and was available. On the other hand, there may have been legitimate concerns about the jury undeveloped on this record. In short, we cannot decide on the extant record whether defense counsel’s failure to move to reopen the hearing was truly “strategic.”  People v Medina-Gonzalez, 2014 NY Slip Op 02531, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Age Discrimination and Retaliation Claims Survived Summary Judgment

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact about both her age-discrimination and her retaliation claims.  The findings were entirely fact-based and centered on evidence the non-discriminatory motives asserted were pretextual.  A sample follows:

Defendants failed to demonstrate that they did not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of her age … . Plaintiff, who was 49 when she was hired by defendant Concentric Health Care LLC, was among the oldest of Concentric’s approximately 70 employees, was qualified for her position of billing manager, and was subjected to a disadvantageous employment action, i.e. termination. Defendant Ken Begasse, Jr. (Junior), a principal of Concentric, testified, in effect, that Concentric, an advertising agency serving the pharmaceutical industry, preferred to hire younger workers because they tended to be cheaper and advertising is generally a “young industry.”

Defendants contend that they terminated plaintiff because they were in financial trouble and their independent consultant recommended terminating plaintiff and replacing her with an employee whose annual salary would be $40,000 less than hers. However, the independent consultant made this recommendation, and others, in February 2009, and, although defendants terminated a number of people based on these recommendations, they did not terminate plaintiff until November 2009, some nine months later. Moreover, Junior and defendant Michael Sanzen, another of Concentric’s principals, testified that, in the months after the consultant made his report, new employees were hired and at least one existing employee was given a $20,000 raise. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation of financial distress is pretextual … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation of poor performance is pretextual. The only documentary evidence of poor performance is a negative review that plaintiff received in September 2009, and there is evidence that, by this time, defendants had already decided to terminate her. Indeed, the review prepared by plaintiff’s immediate superior, Concentric’s comptroller, was only mildly critical of plaintiff; defendant Ken Begasse, Sr. (another of Concentric’s principals) intervened and added extensive negative comments. In an earlier employee review (December 2007), plaintiff had been lauded as “an outstanding professional with vast experience and very high standards,” who “keeps the company’s interest foremost in her mind,” and “always seems to get the work done and done properly.”  McGuinness v Concentric Health Care LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02534, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

, ,

Eviction Based Upon Firearm and Drugs Found in Petitioner’s Apartment Affirmed Despite the Lack of Evidence Petitioner Was Aware the Items Were In the Apartment (Apparently They Were Brought Into the Apartment by Her Older Children) and Despite Petitioner’s Unblemished Record as a Tenant

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and upheld the New York City Housing Authority’s eviction of petitioner based upon the police finding marijuana, oxycodone and an operable firearm in petitioner’s apartment.  Petitioner was not in the apartment at the time the items were found, and there was evidence the items were brought into the apartment by petitioner’s older children.  There was no evidence petitioner was aware the items were in the apartment.  Supreme Court had determined eviction “shocked the conscience” because petitioner had lived in the apartment for 23 years and had an otherwise unblemished record.  The First Department reinstated the eviction order:

…[W]e review the sanction of termination in accordance with the standard set forth in Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County (34 NY2d 222 [1974]). There, the Court of Appeals defined a penalty that is unsustainable as “shocking to one’s sense of fairness” as one which

“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 [situated]” (34 NY2d at 234).

Applying this standard, we find that the facts here support petitioner’s eviction. Eviction is undoubtedly a “grave” sanction. However, in permitting drugs and a lethal weapon to be present in her apartment, petitioner committed a serious breach of the code of conduct that is critical to any multiple dwelling community, and which warrants the ultimate penalty … . Petitioner’s neighbors have a right to live in a safe and drug-free environment, and petitioner significantly compromised their ability to do so, her alleged ignorance of the activities in her apartment notwithstanding … . Matter of Grant v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 02535, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

Courtroom Properly Closed During Testimony of Undercover Office

The First Department determined the trial court properly closed the courtroom and excluded defendant’s sister from the courtroom during the testimony of  the undercover officer:

…[T]he evidence established the type of overriding interest warranting the limited closure of the courtroom that has been upheld … . The undercover officer’s testimony at the hearing supported the court’s finding that testifying at trial in an open courtroom would compromise his undercover work and jeopardize his and his family’s safety … . The officer testified that he had been working undercover for four years, that he was on active duty and bought drugs for buy and bust arrests three or four times per week, and that he had made about 10 purchases near where he bought the drugs from defendant. The officer further testified that several of his investigations were ongoing, that certain targets remained at large, that he had been verbally threatened while working undercover, and that he took numerous precautions to conceal his identity when he had to testify in court. The court’s decision to exclude defendant’s sister, who lived within two blocks of the location where the officer bought drugs from defendant and where he continued to work undercover, is consistent with our prior holdings … . The officer testified that he was concerned that defendant’s sister might expose his identity. * * *

…[A]s the Court of Appeals has held, where the record in a buy-and-bust case “makes no mention of alternatives but is otherwise sufficient to establish the need to close the particular proceeding . . . it can be implied that the trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest” … . People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 02510, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Breach of Contract Allegations Did Not Give Rise to Tort Causes of Action—No Duty Independent of the Contract Itself

The First Department determined that the negligence causes of action were subsumed in the breach of contract allegations and could not be separately pled:

Breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated … . Allegations of negligence based on defects in construction of a condominium sound in breach of contract rather than tort … . A claim for negligent misrepresentation is not separate from a breach of contract claim where the plaintiff fails to allege a breach of any duty independent from contractual obligations … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any legal duty that would give rise to an independent tort cause of action. Neither General Business Law art 23-A nor its regulations create a special duty or support a private right of action. Thus, the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims were duplicative of the breach of contract claim and did not state a cause of action. Board of Mgrs of Soho N 267 W 124th St Condominium v NW 124 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02513, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

, ,

Service of a Notice of Claim on the City Did Not Constitute the Service of a Notice of Claim on the New York City Transit Authority

The First Department determined the service of a notice of claim on the City did not constituted the service of a notice of claim on the New York City Transit Authority:

It is well settled that service of a notice of claim on the City through the Comptroller’s Office is not service upon a separate public authority … . Since plaintiff did not comply with the condition precedent of service of a notice of claim upon the Transit Authority defendants, and they deny having received the notice of claim from the Comptroller’s Office, dismissal is required.  Glasheen v Valera, 2014 NY Slip Op 02512, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Intent Must Exist Simultaneously with the Act/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm, Even Where the Shooter Intends to Assault the Victim, Does Not Constitute Intentional Assault/Loss of Police Officer’s Handwritten Notes Did Not Mandate Adverse Inference Jury Charge—Insufficient Showing of Prejudice

The First Department determined the trial court did not give the right response to a question from the jury and reversed the intentional assault conviction.  The jury asked whether a person who intends to commit assault is guilty of intentional assault if the gun goes off accidentally.  The trial court answered “yes.”  The First Department determined the answer should have been “no” because the intent must be simultaneous with the act.  The First Department further determined that the loss of the police officer’s handwritten notes was a Brady/Rosario violation, but the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice flowing from the loss:

We agree with defendant that the court’s response erroneously allowed the jury to find defendant guilty of intentional assault without finding that the intent element of that crime existed beyond a reasonable doubt. “It is a well-established rule of law that the intent to commit a crime must be present at the time the criminal act takes place” … . The intent element is not satisfied if, as in the jury’s hypothetical, the individual does not intend to pull the trigger at the moment the gun discharges. While those facts might have supported liability for a crime requiring a lesser mens rea than acting intentionally, defendant here was not charged with such a crime. Because the court’s response to the jury’s note incorrectly signaled that an accidental firing of the gun could support a conviction for intentional assault, the conviction on that count must be reversed. People v Lee, 2014 NY Slip Op 02507, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

,

No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest

The First Department determined probable cause for defendant’s arrest did not exist when defendant was handcuffed and the act of handcuffing constituted an arrest, not a detention pending information providing probable cause:

During a buy and bust operation, a ghost undercover detective issued a radio transmission identifying defendant as a participant in a drug sale, made to another undercover officer. Based on that radio transmission describing defendant and his location, a third officer approached defendant on the sidewalk, identified himself, and asked defendant to put his hands up. When defendant acted “a little resistant,” the officer attempted to handcuff him. Defendant then resisted, and the police forcibly handcuffed him.

The suppression court [ruled] that although when the officer stopped the defendant, he did not have probable cause to arrest him based on the information that he had received from the radio transmission, the officer obtained probable cause to arrest defendant after the purchasing undercover officer subsequently radioed his confirmatory identification. …[By] finding that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant until the confirmatory identification, the court implicitly found that the initial apprehension, which preceded that identification, was a proper temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion and that the application of handcuffs on defendant did not transform the detention into a full-scale arrest.

…[W]e reject the People’s argument that defendant was not under arrest at the point when he was handcuffed. Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances … . In this case, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was either armed or dangerous. Nor was there any indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance prior to the handcuffing, or gave the police any reason to believe that he might flee. People v Blanding, 2014 NY Slip Op 02508, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

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