You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE DISFAVORED; HERE THE ISSUES IN EACH MOTION DID NOT OVERLAP AND APPELLANTS OFFERED A SUFFICIENT REASON. I.E. THE FIRST MOTION PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE ADMITTED SWERVING INTO APPELLANTS’ VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellants’ second summary judgment motion in this traffic accident case did not violate the prohibition of successive motions. The first motion dealt with whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law. The second motion addressed defendant’s liability. Appellants demonstrated a sufficient reason for the failure to include both issues in a single motion, i.e., the first motion was made before defendant was deposed and admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle:

… [A]ppellants’ first motion for summary judgment was on the issue of serious injury. Their second motion was on the issue of liability. The issue of whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law, “is a threshold matter separate from the issue of fault” and which must, therefore, be determined separately … . “[S]erious injury is quintessentially an issue of damages, not liability” … . Under the facts presented, appellants’ failure to raise the issue of liability in their first motion for summary judgment does not run afoul of the general disfavor of successive motions since the issue of serious injury was not germane to the issue of liability … .

Appellants have also established the existence of sufficient cause … . Here, the record indicates that the first motion for summary judgment was filed prior to the deposition testimony of defendant-respondent Phanor. In his testimony Phanor admitted that he swerved into appellant’s vehicle in order to avoid another unidentified vehicle. Priester v Phanor, 2024 NY Slip Op 03554, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Here the fact that successive summary judgment motions are generally prohibited was overlooked. The issues in the two motions did not overlap (one dealt with plaintiff’s damages, the other with defendant’s liability). And the first motion was brought before the deposition in which defendant admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT HAS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN A QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM (QRTP) AT EVERY PERMANENCY HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, applying an exception to the mootness doctrine (appellate relief had already been granted), determined Family Court has the decision-making authority to determine the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing:

… [W]e find that Family Court has the decision-making authority as to the appropriateness of the child’s continued placement in a QRTP at every permanency hearing (see Family Ct Act §§ 1088[b], 1089[d][2][viii]). A contrary reading goes against the express purpose of the Family First Act, which is aimed at reducing the use of institutional group placements for children in foster care by limiting the length of time that they can spend there. The Family First Act, codified in New York State through amendments to the relevant provisions in the Family Court Act and Social Services Law, explicitly seeks to “ensure[] more foster children are placed with families by limiting federal reimbursement to only congregate care placements that are demonstrated to be the most appropriate for a child’s needs, subject to ongoing judicial review ” … . Matter of Malachi B. (Tania H.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03534, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Family Court has the authority to review and decide the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MED MAL CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this medical malpractice case was entitled to dismissal of all claims because he was not properly served:

Defendant Michael B. Shannon, M.D. contends that this action should have been dismissed as against him for lack of timely service under CPLR 306-b … . It is undisputed on appeal that plaintiff failed to properly serve Shannon within 120 days of commencement of this action. Plaintiff does not purport to have demonstrated good cause for the delay. We find that an extension of time to serve Shannon was not warranted in the interest of justice.

Shannon’s unrebutted affidavit reflects that service was attempted at an office where he worked only as an independent contractor and that his residence and principal place of business were in Ohio. Plaintiff failed to make any effort to investigate further or to correct this error when Shannon failed to appear or answer. She did not file her default motion until nearly two years after commencing this action, which is well over the one-year deadline to make such a motion (see CPLR 3215[c]). The motion was also filed after discovery and motion practice were well underway. Diaz v Nasir, 2024 NY Slip Op 03536, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to serve defendant and did not make a timely motion to extend the time to serve, complaint dismissed.

 

, ,

DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND AFTER WORK ON ANOTHER PROJECT WAS NOT “INTEGRAL” TO THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS PERFORMING WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATIONS; IN ADDITION THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEBRIS; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on certain Labor Law 241(6) causes of action and the city’s motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims should not have been granted. Plaintiff tripped on discarded plastic and rock debris from prior sidewalk demolition and construction. Plaintiff was working on reconstruction of a sidewalk bridge when he fell. Therefore the plastic and rock debris did not constitute material integral to the work plaintiff was performing as Supreme Court had held. In addition, although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed because the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition created by the debris:

The plastic and the rock were not integral to the work performed by plaintiff or his coworkers because it constituted an accumulation of debris from previous work that was left in a “passageway” or “working area” which should have been kept free of debris ​… . * * *​

The “task at hand” did not involve demolition. It is uncontested that plaintiff and his coworkers were dismantling and rebuilding a sidewalk bridge at a new location and that plaintiff fell when he slipped and tripped while manually transporting a heavy beam to the new location. While it is undisputed that Padilla was a general contractor that did demolition work, the court’s overly broad view of the integral to the work defense reads [Industrial Code] sections 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2) out of existence. Lourenco v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03540, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Debris left over from another job was not “integral” to the work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s fall, therefore the presence of the debris violated certain provisions of the Industrial Code.​

Practice Point: Although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, it did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Therefore the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF STEPPED ON A SMALL WOODEN “PATCH” COVERING A HOLE IN THE FLOOR AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE HOLE; DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE WAS REJECTED; THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT NEED NOT BE FORESEEN; IT IS ENOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ELEVATION-RELATION RISK AND NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was walking on a floor which had holes in it where mechanical equipment had been removed. When plaintiff stepped on a 12-inch by 12-inch “patch” which had been placed over a hole his leg went through and he was injured. The First Department rejected defendant’s argument that the incident was not foreseeable:

Plaintiff was working in the interstitial space, approximately eight feet from the 11th floor below, and was thus exposed to the effects of gravity. … [T]he affixing of “harnesses and safety lines attached to a safe structure” are the type of safety devices envisioned by § 240(1) to prevent a worker from falling through a collapsing floor … , which plaintiff was not provided.

… “A plaintiff in a case involving the collapse of a permanent structure must establish that the collapse was ‘foreseeable,’ not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of foreseeability of plaintiff’s exposure to an elevation-related risk”… . To establish foreseeability, “[a] plaintiff need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the injuries occurred was foreseeable; it is sufficient that [plaintiff] demonstrate that the risk of some injury from defendant’s conduct was foreseeable” … . This foreseeability analysis … applies to the partial collapse of a permanent structure … . Ciaurella v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 03455, First Dept 6-25-24

Practice Point; This is the second Labor Law 240(1) case in recent weeks involving the collapse of a permanent structure (a roof in the prior case and here a floor). In both cases the Appellate Division rejected the argument the accident was not foreseeable.

 

,

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER VIOLATED RULES IMPOSED BY THE “STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION” (SIST) REGIMEN, HE DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY DANGEROUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFINED AND SHOULD BE RELEASED AND MANAGED UNDER “SIST” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although respondent sex offender violated some of the rules associated with his released into the community, the violations were not related to sexual behavior. Therefore respondent should not be confined and should be released to the community and managed under SIST (strict and intensive supervision):

It is undisputed that, during the relevant period, respondent made no sexual threats, did not approach any treatment staff in a sexual manner, and did not express any sexual impulses or urges. We agree with our sister department that “in the absence of evidence of sexually inappropriate conduct while on SIST, it becomes incumbent on the State to demonstrate a persuasive link between a nonsexual SIST violation and the offender’s ability to control his sexual behavior” … . “A mere tendency to engage in risky or socially undesirable conduct — even if that conduct provides an opportunity for, or increases the likelihood of, sexual offending — is quintessentially insufficient to establish ‘inability’ under the Michael M. formulation” (George N., 160 AD3d at 31 …). Finally, a respondent’s mere struggling with sexual urges is insufficient to show inability to control … . Matter of State of New York v Anthony R., 2024 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: A sexual offender who has not exhibited any dangerous sexual behavior under SIST should be released and management under SIST should be continued. Confinement is not justified by non-sexual SIST violations.

 

,

WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined CPLR 308(2) was not violated by mailing the foreclosure summons and complaint to defendant in an envelope which indicated the contents were litigation-related. Although the address to which the documents were mailed was defendant’s business address, it also served has his residential address. The envelope-restrictions only apply to a mailing to a business address. In a matter of first impression, the First Department held the residential-address mailing-rules, not the business-address mailing restrictions, applied and CPLR 308(2) was not violated:

Defendant’s argument that where a dual purpose exists the business mailing restrictions prohibiting litigation-related markings on the envelope take precedence over the residential mailing conditions is untenable. This position would improperly render meaningless one provision in favor of the other for no apparent reason other than to benefit one side over the other … . … [A] close reading of CPLR 308(2)’s mailing requirements reveals an alternative construction that would resolve this interesting dilemma … . The placement of the phrase “last known residence” before the phrase “actual place of business” signals the Legislature’s clear intent to deem mailing to a defendant’s residence to be primary over a place of business. Indeed, the legislative history for the 1987 amendment to CPLR 308(2) strongly supports this reasoning … . The amendment providing for mailing to a place of business was to ameliorate the inability to locate a defendant’s residence. Thus, mailing to a residential address is primary over a mailing to a place of business, an option that was intended to be secondary in effectuating service of process. Based on the foregoing, where a defendant’s address is both residential and a place of business, the address may be deemed as a residential one in the affidavit of service, permitting a mailing in accordance with CPLR 308(2)’s residential mailing requirements. Under these circumstances, the mailing … did not violate CPLR 308(2)’s mailing requirements…. . AMK Capital Corp. v Plotch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03324, First Dept 6-18-24

Practice Point: Where a defendant’s mailing address is both a business address and a residential address, the CPLR 308(2) “business address” rule, i.e., the envelope must not indicate the contents are litigation-related, does not apply.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TAKEN A YEAR BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THE PHOTO ACCURATELY AND FAIRLY DEPICTED THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME OF THE FALL WAS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, determined the raised sidewalk flag which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall was sufficiently proven by a photograph taken a year before the accident because plaintiff testified the photo accurately depicted the condition of the sidewalk at the time of the accident:

Plaintiff demonstrated prima facie, through his deposition testimony, photographs and other evidence, that his accident was caused by a hazardous defect in the sidewalk, i.e. a raised sidewalk flag … . Although the photographs were taken over a year prior to plaintiff’s accident and in connection with a different accident at the same location, plaintiff’s testimony that they “fairly and accurately” depicted the condition of the sidewalk at the time of his accident rendered the photographs “probative on the issue of whether the defect was dangerous” … .

The record also demonstrates that the Condo had actual and constructive notice of the sidewalk defect and that the defect existed, unremedied, for a significant period of time prior to plaintiff’s accident. Richard v 1550 Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03236, First Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: Even if the photo of the dangerous condition, here a raised sidewalk flag in a slip and fall case, predates the accident, plaintiff’s testimony the photo fairly and accurately depicts the condition of the sidewalk at the time of slip and fall renders the photo admissible and sufficient.

 

,

INCARCERATED FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED IN-PERSON VISITATION WITH HIS SON ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS; FATHER HAD STABBED MOTHER WHILE SHE WAS HOLDING THE CHILD AND FATHER HAD HARASSED MOTHER DURING PERMITTED PHONE CALLS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the award of in-person visitation by the child with the incarcerated father once every six months was not supported by the record:

Visitation with a noncustodial parent, including an incarcerated parent, is generally presumed to be in the best interests of the child … . However, that presumption is rebuttable, and “a demonstration that such visitation would be harmful to the child will justify denying such a request” … .

Here, the evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of visitation. The father is incarcerated in connection with his conviction for robbing and stabbing the mother while she was holding their child in her arms. The record indicates that the father has been incarcerated for most of the child’s life and that the father has had no meaningful relationship with the child … . … [T]he now five-year-old child would have to travel several hours each way to visit the prison at which the father is incarcerated, and the child is not comfortable being in a car or being away from her mother for an extended period … .

… [M]other testified that the father has used his permitted phone-calls with the child to harass the mother, despite her order of protection against him … . The position advocated by the attorney for the child was also entitled to serious consideration and supports modification of the court’s order … . Matter of Leroy W. (Shanequa W.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03238, First Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: Here the presumption incarcerated father was entitled to in-person visitation with his son was rebutted.

 

,

IN THIS CROSSWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE MUNICIPALITY REPAIRED THE AREA FIVE MONTHS BEFORE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that the municipality repaired the crosswalk where plaintiff slipped and fell five months before did not constitute an exception to the prior written notice requirement:

Prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City, in the absence of a recognized exception … . The only recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality … . The affirmative negligence exception is limited to work which immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition … . In support of her motion, plaintiff submitted evidence that the most recent repair work was performed five months prior to the accident in the general area of the subject defect. This does not raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants created the defect that caused plaintiff’s fall through an affirmative act of negligence at the location where the injury occurred, which immediately resulted in the existence of a dangerous condition … . Smith v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03150, First Dept 6-11-24

Practice Point: Unless the plaintiff can allege the dangerous condition which caused the slip and fall was created by the municipality at the time the repair was made, prior written notice of the defect is a condition precedent for the lawsuit. Here the allegation the area was repaired five months before the slip and fall was not sufficient.

 

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