You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Family Court Should Have Granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal as the Least Restrictive Dispositional Alternative in a Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the First Department, over a dissent, determined the appellant should have been granted an adjournment of contemplation of dismissal (ACD) as the appropriate least restrictive disposition of the case:

…[W]e conclude that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) would have been the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection … . We note that an ACD could have been made subject to conditions, such as counseling and educational requirements. This was appellant’s first offense, and he had an exemplary academic record, along with strong recommendations from school personnel … . There is no indication that he has unsavory friends or a record of school disciplinary problems, truancy or poor grades … . On the contrary, appellant, who has a strong social support network, received an award for perfect school attendance and, upon graduation from eighth grade, an assemblyman and senator from the area awarded him a certificate of merit for academic achievement. He has also demonstrated leadership in sports. Additionally, appellant participated in a sexual behavior program and expressed remorse for his actions. Furthermore, appellant … stayed out of trouble for the 18 months that the case was pending. Based on all these factors, there is no reason to believe that appellant needed any supervision beyond that which could have been provided under an ACD. Matter of Juan P, 2014 NY Slip Op 00879, 1st Dept 2-11-14

 

, ,

Labor Law Suit for Gratuities Not Preempted by Labor Management Relations Act or Prohibited by Collective Bargaining Agreement

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department determined the plaintiffs, food and beverages servers at Madison Square Garden, had stated a cause of action against the defendant Garden under Labor Law 196-d. The plaintiffs alleged the Garden was not distributing to the plaintiffs all the “service charges” paid by customers who were led to believe the “service charges” were gratuities for the servers. The First Department rejected the Garden’s argument that the claims were preempted by federal law (Labor Management Relations Act [LMRA]) and, alternatively, subject to mandatory arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement [CBA].

Section 301 of the LMRA provides that “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce … may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties” (29 USC § 185[a]. The Supreme Court has interpreted this section to preempt state law claims “founded directly on rights created by collective bargaining agreements” as well as “claims substantially dependent on an analysis of a collective bargaining agreement'”… . * * *

Section 301 [of the LMRA] … does not preempt state claims when state law confers an independent statutory right to bring a claim … .Even if resolution of a state-law claim “involves attention to the same factual considerations as the contractual determination … such parallelism [does not mandate preemption]” … .

A defendant’s reliance on the CBA is not enough to “inject—a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a state-law claim”… . * * *

A CBA cannot preclude a lawsuit concerning individual statutory rights unless the arbitration clause in the agreement is “clear and unmistakable” that the parties intended to arbitrate such individual claims … . “A clear and unmistakable’ waiver exists where one of two requirements is met: (1) if the arbitration clause contains an explicit provision whereby an employee specifically agrees to submit all causes of action arising out of his employment to arbitration; or (2) where the arbitration clause specifically references or incorporates a statute into the agreement to arbitrate disputes” … . “Arbitration clauses that cover any dispute concerning the interpretation, application, or claimed violation of a specific term or provision’ of the collective bargaining agreement do not contain the requisite clear and unmistakable’ waiver because the degree of generality [in the arbitration provision] falls far short of a specific agreement to submit all federal claims to arbitration'”… . Tamburino v Madison Sq Garden LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 0895, 1st Dept 2-11-14

 

Court-Ordered Period for Bringing Summary Judgment Motion Which Was Shorter than the Statutory Period Cannot Be Modified Absent Good Cause—Law Office Failure Not Enough

The First Department determined that the court-ordered deadline for bringing a summary judgment motion could not be modified absent good cause, even though the court-ordered deadline shortened the statutory 120 period:

As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated, court-ordered time frames are requirements to be taken seriously by the parties … . Contrary to the distinction defendant seeks to draw, it does not matter whether a motion for summary judgment has been made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue or after the expiration of a shorter time limit set by a court order or stipulation. Whatever the source of the deadline with which a party fails to comply, the lateness may not be excused without a showing of good cause within the meaning of CPLR 3212(a)—a showing of something more than mere law office failure… . Quinones v Joan & Sanford I Weill Med Coll, 2014 NY slip Op 00882, 1st Dept 2-11-13

 

In the Absence of a Defect, Inherently Smooth Floors Do Not Give Rise to Liability

In a slip and fall case, the First Department noted that inherently smooth floors do not give rise to liability in the absence of a defect.  The plaintiff slipped and fell on a cotton bath mat on a smooth bathroom floor:

In cases involving inherently smooth, and thus potentially slippery tiled or stone floors, absent competent evidence of a defect in the surface or some deviation from an applicable industry standard, no liability is imposed … . The same standard applies to allegedly defective bath mats … .

The motion court properly found that defendants made a prima facie showing that the accident was not attributable to a defect in the floor or the bath mat, and that they were therefore entitled to summary judgment. Kalish v HEI Hospitality LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00729, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

,

Accident Occurred Within 15-Day Grace Period Allowed for Repair of Road Defects/City Could Not Be Held Liable

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the 15-day grace period allowed for the repair of an identified roadway defect precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit:

Eight days before plaintiff’s accident, a City highway inspector employed by the Department of Transportation prepared a Highway Inspection and Quality Assurance Report identifying a two-inch-deep defect in the street at the location of the accident, and issued a Corrective Action Request for repairs. These documents constitute a “written acknowledgement from the city of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition,” i.e., one of the three alternative prerequisites to bringing an action against the City for personal injuries caused by a defect in the public street (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]…). However, the same provision of the Administrative Code also provides the City with a 15-day grace period within which to repair or otherwise render safe the defective condition (§ 7-201[c][2]). Since the “written acknowledgement” was received by the City only eight days before the accident, this action may not be maintained against the City. Berrios v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 00733, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

Redaction of Information Which Could Possibly Endanger Witnesses in a Homicide Investigation Is Required

Over a dissent, the First Department determined that information which could endanger confidential witnesses in a homicide investigation should be redacted from documents released pursuant to a FOIL request:

We agree with the dissent’s observation that the public safety exemption of Public Officers Law § 87(2)(f) does not warrant a blanket exception for DD5s …that reveal the identity of individuals (see Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 277 [1996]…). However, the dissent’s rationale for release of this information, i.e., that “they may provide further information that would benefit [petitioner’s] case” is at odds with both the public safety and privacy exemptions of Public Officers Law § 87.

The Gould Court recognized that unlimited disclosure of identifying information on the DD5s is not warranted. It stated that “[d]isclosure of such documents could potentially endanger the safety of witnesses, invade personal rights, and expose confidential information of nonroutine police procedures. The statutory exemptions contained in the Public Officers Law, however, strike a balance between the public’s right to open government and the inherent risks carried by disclosure of police files” (Gould, 89 NY2d at 278, citing Public Officers Law § 87[2][b], [e], [f]). * * *

…[I]n the context of a homicide investigation, “we do not find that there must be a specific showing by respondents that petitioner, who is presently incarcerated, has threatened or intimidated any of the witnesses in his criminal case . . . in order to warrant redaction of certain identifying information” …. . … “The agency in question need only demonstrate a possibility of endanger[ment]’ in order to invoke this exemption” … . In fact, “[e]ven in the absence of such a threat, certain information found in DD-5s could, by its inherent nature, give rise to the implication that its release, in unredacted form, could endanger the life and safety of witnesses or have a chilling effect on future witness cooperation” … . Matter of Exoneration Initiative v New York City Police Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 00728, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

, ,

Malpractice by Chiropractor Governed by Three-Year Statute of Limitations

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, the First Department determined that a malpractice action against a chiropractor (Dr. Fitzgerald) is governed by the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214(6)), not the 2 ½ year statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a) governing actions against physicians and those providing medical services at the direction of a physician:

Here, plaintiff was not referred to Dr. Fitzgerald by a licensed physician and Dr. Fitzgerald’s chiropractic treatment was not an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to a patient or substantially related to any medical treatment provided by a physician. Indeed, plaintiff did not even inform her physicians, including her primary care physician, that she was receiving chiropractic treatment for her neck and back. Further, the record establishes that the treatment provided by Fitzgerald, consisting of adjusting or applying force to different parts of the spine, massages, heat compression, and manipulation of plaintiff’s neck, constituted chiropractic treatment (see Education Law § 6551). The fact that defendant provided treatment to the human body to address a physical condition or pain, which may be within the broad statutory definition of practicing medicine (Education Law § 6521), does not, by itself, render the treatment “medical” within the meaning of CPLR 214-a, since the use of such a broad definition would result in the inclusion of many “alternative and nontraditional approaches to diagnosing [and] treating . . . human disease'” which are clearly nonmedical in nature … .

…Here, there is no doubt that Dr. Fitzgerald’s treatment was separate and apart from any other treatment provided by a licensed physician and was not performed at a physician’s request. Accordingly, as with the psychologist in Karasek [92 NY2d 171], and the optometrist in Boothe [107 AD2d 730], defendant is not entitled to invoke the benefit of the shortened limitations period applicable to medical, dental and podiatric malpractice, and is subject to the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214(6). Perez v Fitzgerald, 2014 NY Slip Op 00744, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

,

Stipulation of No Contact Rendered Performance of Contracts Impossible/Contracts Rescinded

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined that a stipulation entered into in Family Court, which prohibited all contact between the plaintiff, a well-known jazz singer, and defendant, the owner of a jazz club, made the performance of the contracts entered into by the plaintiff and defendant impossible.  Plaintiff was therefore entitled to rescission of the contracts.  Plaintiff and defendant (Valenti) had been in a romantic relationship which fell apart and plaintiff initially sought an order of protection from Family Court:

“[I]mpossibility excuses a party’s performance only when the destruction of the subject matter of the contract or the means of performance makes performance objectively impossible. Moreover, the impossibility must be produced by an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract” … . The excuse of impossibility is generally “limited to the destruction of the means of performance by an act of God, vis major, or by law” … .

In this case, performance of the contracts at issue has been rendered objectively impossible by law, since the stipulation destroyed the means of performance by precluding all contact between plaintiff and Valenti except by counsel… . Kolodin v Valenti, 2014 NY slip Op 00745, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Snow Removal Contractor Created Hazardous Condition by Inadequate Salting

In a slip and fall case, the First Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant, who contracted to provide snow and ice removal, had created or exacerbated a hazardous ice condition by not adequately salting the ice:

…[T]he record presents a triable issue of fact as to whether Waldorf owed plaintiff a duty of care by having “launched a force or instrument of harm” in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its snow and ice removal duties … . The evidence, including photographs and videos taken at the scene of the accident showing the icy condition and deposition testimony that there was no sand or salt in the area where plaintiff fell, raises questions as to whether Waldorf had adequately salted the … pathway, and therefore, whether it created or exacerbated the hazardous ice condition… . Jenkins v Related Cos LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 00727, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

, ,

Impeachment of Defendant With a Statement Made by Defendant’s Attorney Deemed Proper

The First Department determined the impeachment of the defendant with a statement made by the defendant’s attorney at arraignment was proper:

The court properly admitted a statement made at arraignment by defendant’s counsel, who was also trial counsel, to impeach defendant after he testified to a different version of the events … At the arraignment, the attorney stated that defendant was the source of the information, and the attorney was clearly acting as defendant’s authorized agent when she provided this information to the arraignment court for her client’s benefit …, notwithstanding her assertion at trial that she had inaccurately conveyed her client’s version of the incident. Introduction of the statements did not require the People to call counsel as a witness against her client … , and the People never sought to do so. People v Ortiz, 2014 NY Slip Op 00616, 1st Dept 2-4-14

 

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