You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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

 

, ,

​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

 

, ,

New York City Street-Sweeping Vehicles Are Now Exempt from the Rules of the Road Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (Subject to the “Reckless Disregard” as Opposed to the “Ordinary Negligence” Standard) But Were Not So Exempt in 2010 When this Accident Occurred

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

 

,

Criteria for Judicial Review of Agency’s Action Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Explained

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

 

,

A Gallery, as Agent for an Artist, Was Obligated to Disclose All Material Facts Within the Scope of the Agency/The Failure to Disclose the Gallery’s Intention to Treat Prints Made from the Artist’s Originals as Belonging to the Gallery Precluded Any Claim of Ownership by the Gallery

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

 

,

Teacher’s Termination for a One-Time Mistake “Shocks One’s Sense of Fairness”

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

 

No Need to Allege “the Benefit Was Conferred at the Behest of the Defendant”

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined  a 2012 Court of Appeals case (Georgia Malone & Co Inc v Reider, 19 NY3d 511) did not change the law of unjust enrichment and explained the nature of the relationship between the parties which must be alleged in the pleadings:

It is well established that to successfully plead unjust enrichment “[a] plaintiff must allege that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered'” … . A claim for unjust enrichment “is undoubtedly equitable and depends upon broad considerations of equity and justice” … . A plaintiff is not required to allege privity. It must, however, “assert a connection between the parties that [is] not too attenuated” … . Thus, although a plaintiff could satisfy this requirement by alleging that the benefit was conferred at the behest of the defendant …, the Court of Appeals has never required such a relationship. Rather, the pleadings merely have to “indicate a relationship between the parties that could have caused reliance or inducement” … . Philips Intl Invs LLC v Pektor, 2014 Slip Op 01700, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

, , ,

Taxi Owners Not Entitled to Damages After Ruling by NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (Which Was Alleged to Have Damaged the Taxi Owners in the Amount of Over $15 Million) Was Found Arbitrary and Capricious

The First Department determined a ruling by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), which was found to be arbitrary and capricious by the Court of Appeals, did not entitle the petitioners (taxi owners who lease their taxis to drivers) to damages. The court determined the damages were not “incidental” within the meaning of Article 78 and were not available in an Article 78 proceeding (under the facts). The court futher determined the TLC was immune from suit because the ruling at issue was an exercise of discretion . The ruling by the TLC had effectively reduced the amount a taxi owner could charge a driver by requiring that tax payments for which the owner is responsible be included in the amount charged for the lease (called a “lease cap”). After that ruling was found arbitrary by the Court of Appeals, the taxi owners sought “incidental damages” of over $15 million:

Petitioners seek damages based on the Court of Appeals’ determination that the TLC’s effective reduction of the taxi “lease cap” had no rational basis. The Court of Appeals’ determination, however, does not lead to a conclusion that the damages are “incidental to the primary relief sought” (CPLR 7806). Contrary to petitioners’ argument, monetary injury incurred as a result of agency action does not necessarily constitute incidental damages simply because a court later finds the action to have been arbitrary and capricious. Certainly, whether damages are characterized as incidental “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Even so, incidental damages are generally confined to monies that an agency either collected from or withheld from a petitioner and then was obligated to reimburse after a court annulled a particular agency determination. * * *

CPLR 7806 explicitly limits the availability of damages in an article 78 proceeding … . That article 78 permits the court, in certain circumstances, to award damages in an action that also reviews the validity of a government determination does not create a right to damages that does not otherwise exist. * * *…

[T]he TLC’s determination in this case, however unjustified it may have been, was an exercise of discretion; the TLC did consider the issue of imposing the tax rule and decided to impose it. Putting aside the merits of its decision, there is no escaping that the TLC exercised its discretion. Indeed, a governmental function such as rulemaking is necessarily an “exercise of judgment and discretion performed in the public interest,” and is protected as a discretionary act … . Accordingly, in a plenary action, governmental immunity would preclude petitioners from recovering incidental damages. Metropolitan Taxicab Bd of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 2014 NY Slip Op 01683, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

,

Failure to Mention the Rate of Compensation Required Dismissal of the Contract Cause of Action Under the Statute of Frauds/However the Allegation Defendant Employed Plaintiff Was Sufficient to Allow the Quantum Meruit Cause of Action to Go Forward

The First Department determined the contract cause of action must be dismissed under General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(10) because there was no mention of the rate of compensation,  but that there were sufficient allegations to allow the quantum meruit cause of action to go forward:

In Davis & Mamber, this Court held that for a writing evidencing a contract “[t]o satisfy the Statute of Frauds . . . a memorandum must contain expressly or by reasonable implication all the material terms of the agreement, including the rate of compensation if there has been agreement on that matter” … . … Davis & Mamber precluded a contract claim for failure to satisfy the applicable provision of the statute of frauds, because the relied-on writings lacked any reference to the agreed-on compensation; however, it permitted a quantum meruit claim, because the rule for a writing establishing quantum meruit claims is less exacting, requiring only that the writing “evidenced the fact of plaintiff’s employment [by defendant] to render the alleged services” …. Here, as in Davis & Mamber, the emails … fail to make any reference to payment terms, and accordingly fail to satisfy the statute of frauds as to the contract claim … . However, they suffice to show that [defendant] employed plaintiff, and are therefore enough to satisfy the statute for purposes of plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim.  Chapman, Spira & Carson LLC v Helix BioPharma Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 01685, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

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