You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Judicial Estoppel Applies Only to Party Who Prevailed in Prior Proceeding

The First Department explained that the concept of judicial estoppel only applies to the prevailing party in the prior action:

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiffs’ previous assertion of their own claim for contractual indemnification does not judicially estop them from denying that defendant is entitled to indemnification of attorneys’ fees under the agreement. The doctrine of judicial estoppel ” precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'” … . As plaintiffs did not prevail on their contractual indemnification claim, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply… . Wells Fargo Bank NA v Webster Bus Credit Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 00412, 1st Dept 1-23-14

 

Notice of Voluntary Discontinuance Filed After Opponents’ Motions to Dismiss Is Untimely

The First Department determined plaintiff’s (BDO’s) notice of voluntary discontinuance was untimely because it was filed after the defendants filed motions to dismiss:

BDO unilaterally filed a notice of voluntary discontinuance. This notice was untimely because BDO served it after defendants filed their motions to dismiss (see CPLR 3217[a][1]; … David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3217:8 [“[t]he defendant who has moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211 has already done as much in the litigation (and more) than if she had merely answered the complaint”]). Indeed, if a motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” within the meaning of CPLR 3217(a)(1), a plaintiff would be able to freely discontinue its action without prejudice solely to avoid a potentially adverse decision on a pending dismissal motion. This Court has made clear that such conduct is improper … . Thus, BDO’s notice was ineffective and a nullity… . BDO USA, LLP v Phoenix Four Inc, 2014 NY slip Op 00410, 1st Dept 1-23-14

 

, ,

Attorney’s Defamation Suit Against Client Based Upon Letters Sent to the Attorney by the Client Dismissed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined that letters written by a client to an attorney, terminating the attorney’s employment, were not actionable under a defamation theory for three reasons: the statements constituted opinion; the statements were absolutely privileged; and the statements were qualifiedly privileged.  With respect to qualified privilege, the First Department wrote:

…[T]he statements contained in defendants’ letters would be subject to a qualified privilege as communications upon a subject matter in which both parties had an interest … . “The shield provided by a qualified privilege may be dissolved if plaintiff can demonstrate that defendant [made the statement] with malice,'” which may mean either spite or ill will, or knowledge that the statement was false or made in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity … . The statement must have been made with a proper purpose, and publication must be in a proper manner and to proper parties only … .

A client’s letter to an attorney terminating the attorney’s services and explaining the client’s perceived grounds for the termination qualifies as a communication on a subject in which sender and recipient have a shared interest. Where the letter is sent only to the attorney, and access to its contents is limited to the recipient and the defendant (which includes any of defendant’s employees who assisted in its preparation), proper publication is established as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s bare allegations of malice are insufficient to prevent dismissal on this ground.

“The threat of being put to the defense of a lawsuit . . . may be as chilling to the exercise of First Amendment freedoms as fear of the outcome of the lawsuit itself” … . As a matter of public policy, which should protect open and honest communication between attorneys and their clients, clients must be permitted to make such claims, or complaints, directly to their attorneys, and to their attorneys alone, without threat of a lawsuit. Frechtman v Gutterman, 2014 NY slip Op 00437, 1st Dept 1-23-14

 

,

Tenant Who Successfully Defended a Landlord’s Holdover Action Entitled to Attorney’s Fees

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a dissent, determined that a tenant who prevailed in the defense of the landlord’s holdover proceeding was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Real Property Law 24:

We now find that, having prevailed in his defense of the landlord’s holdover proceeding, the tenant is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to Real Property Law § 234. That section states that when a lease provides for a landlord’s recovery of attorneys’ fees resulting from a tenant’s failure to perform any covenant under a lease, a reciprocal covenant “shall be implied” for the landlord to pay attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of either its failure to perform a covenant under the lease or a tenant’s successful defense:

“Whenever a lease of residential property shall provide that in any action or summary proceeding the landlord may recover attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred as the result of the failure of the tenant to perform any covenant or agreement contained in such lease, or that amounts paid by the landlord therefor shall be paid by the tenant as additional rent, there shall be implied in such lease a covenant by the landlord to pay to the tenant the reasonable attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred by the tenant as the result of the failure of the landlord to perform any covenant or agreement on its part to be performed under the lease or in the successful defense of any action or summary proceeding commenced by the landlord against the tenant arising out of the lease.”

The overriding purpose of the statute is to provide a level playing field between landlords and tenants, by creating a mutual obligation that is an incentive to resolve disputes quickly and without undue expense … . As a remedial statute, Real Property Law § 234 should be accorded its broadest protective meaning consistent with legislative intent … . The outcome of any claim pursuant to Real Property Law § 234 depends upon an analysis of the specific language of the lease provision at issue in each case to discern its meaning and import … . Graham CT Owner’s Corp v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 00311, 1st Dept 1-21-14

 

“Foreseeability” In the Context of a Building Collapse

The First Department explained the “foreseeability” aspect of a Labor Law 240(1) action stemming from the collapse of a building:

A plaintiff in a case involving 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 exposure to an elevation-related risk… . Garcia v Neighborhood Partnership Hous Dev Fund Co Inc, 2-14 NY Slip Op 00298, 1st Dept 1-21-14

 

In a Slip and Fall Case, the Flawed Constructive-Notice Jury Instruction Required Reversal of the Verdict (Plaintiff Had Won) and a New Trial on Liability

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed the verdict in plaintiff’s favor in a slip and fall case because of a flawed jury instruction and ordered a new trial on liability.  Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on ice on a subway platform.  The First Department determined that the jury instruction on constructive notice was so flawed that a new trial was necessary:

Over objection and despite defendant’s request for the correct instruction, the trial court instructed the jury that it had to find that “defendant either knew about the dangerous conditions or circumstances and that would be actual notice or a reasonable person would conclude that such a condition existed, and that would be called constructive notice.” This instruction does not make it clear that in order to find constructive notice, the jury must conclude that the condition was visible and apparent, and that it existed for a sufficient length of time for defendant to have discovered it and taken curative action (see PJI 2:90; 2:11 A…).  Harrison v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 00277, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

Judge’s Refusal to Grant a One-Day Adjournment to Allow Defendant to Present a Witness (After the Judge Granted the People’s Request for a Missing-Witness Jury Instruction) Was Reversible Error

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the judge refused to grant defendant a one-day adjournment to bring in a witness after granting the People’s request for a missing-witness jury instruction:

Having granted the People’s request for the [missing witness] instruction, the court should have granted defendant a short adjournment. A missing witness issue “must be raised as soon as practicable so that the court can appropriately exercise its discretion and the parties can tailor their trial strategy”… . Here, the moving party raised the issue after defendant’s testimony, when the issue became apparent. The court should have then accorded the nonmoving party the opportunity to avoid the missing witness charge by calling the witness. Although defendant was willing to call the witness, the court effectively rendered the witness unavailable, thus negating the availability requirement for a missing witness charge.

The court apparently denied the adjournment on the ground that defendant should have anticipated the missing witness issue. However, an adjournment to the next day would have been reasonable under the circumstances. People v Manzi, 2014 NY Slip Op 00280, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

No Constructive Notice of Icy Condition/Allegation Defendant Created the Condition Based on Speculation

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a thin sheet of ice in a plaza in front of defendant’s building.  Defendant demonstrated that the area had been inspected an hour before the accident and no ice was visible.  Plaintiff acknowledged she could not see the ice.  Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant created the dangerous condition by running a fountain which was the source of a wind-borne spray of water on the plaza was deemed too speculative:

The evidence submitted by defendant, including security logs, establishes that defendant’s employees routinely inspected the area where plaintiff fell, had conducted an inspection one hour prior to her accident, and did not observe any ice. In opposition and in support of her cross motion, plaintiff failed to provide evidence showing that the ice was discernable.

On appeal, plaintiff does not dispute defendant’s lack of actual notice of ice on the plaza, having conceded, at her examination before trial, that it was not visible. She testified that although conditions at about 9:30 a.m. were bright and clear, it “looked like a thin layer of ice that wasn’t noticeable enough for me to see it before I fell.” Thus, the record establishes that the hazardous condition was not “visible and apparent” so as to enable defendant’s employees to discover it and take remedial measures… . Tompa v 767 Fifth Partners LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00276, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

,

Level Three Forcible Stop Not Justified, Convictions Reversed—Prior Arrest of One of the Defendants and the Fact that Both Defendants Were Running While Looking Back Over their Shoulders Was Not Enough to Justify the Forcible Stop

In a two separate full-fledged opinions by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over dissents, the First Department reversed defendants’ convictions, finding that their motions to suppress should have been granted.  Defendants were stopped after the police observed them running at 4:40 am.  Both men, Thomas and Brown, were looking back over their shoulders as they ran.  Brown (but not Thomas) was known to the police as someone who “engaged in fraudulent accosting in that area…”. The First Department determined the stop was not justified for either defendant:

A level three forcible stop is constitutional only if the police have a “reasonable suspicion that a particular person was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” … . In determining whether the police officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion, only the information known to the officers prior to the forcible stop is relevant … .

The officers’ knowledge of defendant Brown’s prior criminality in the same neighborhood was not sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion justifying a level three intrusion as to Brown; perforce, knowledge of Brown’s prior criminality was insufficient to justify a level three intrusion as to [Thomas], who was merely in Brown’s company and was not even known by the officers to have a criminal record. The police sergeant only knew [Thomas] by face, and the officer did not know [Thomas] personally and had never arrested him. … The motion court, in denying [Thomas’] motion to suppress, appears to have endorsed a theory of “guilt by association,” which must vigorously be rejected.

 “[A] stop based on no more than that a suspect has previously been arrested . . . is premature and unlawful and cannot be justified by subsequently acquired information resulting from the stop”… . * * *

The fact that the officers observed [Thomas] and Brown running does not elevate the level of suspicion. Flight, accompanied by equivocal circumstances, does not supply the requisite reasonable suspicion … . The police did not observe conduct indicative of criminality, nor did they even possess information that a crime had occurred in the area. People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 00291, 1st Dept 1-16-14; same result in People v Brown, 2014 NY Slip Op 00292, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

Failure to Accurately Identify Where Slip and Fall Occurred in Notice of Claim Warranted Dismissal of Complaint

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a slip and fall complaint should have been dismissed because the notice of claim did not accurately identify the place where the fall occurred:

Under these circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In addition to giving a vague description in his notice of claim that did not describe the location of the alleged defect with sufficient particularity …, plaintiff gave contradictory versions of the accident location, which further rendered the notice of claim defective, since it served to obscure the correct location. Plaintiff did not advise defendant of the revised location until more than three years after the alleged accident, which prejudiced defendant’s ability to conduct a meaningful and timely investigation of the claim… . Robles v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 00181, 1st Dept 1-14-14

 

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