You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Denied—No Showing of Good Cause for the Delay/Motion Was Mislabeled as a Cross Motion

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, over a dissent, the First Department determined an untimely motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there was no explanation for the delay.  The court noted the motion was mislabeled as a cross-motion because it did not address the issues raised in the original motion, but rather addressed the allegations in the complaint:

Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the “recurring scenario” of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect “ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice” (2 NY3d at 650). Brill holds that to rein in these late motions, brought as late as shortly before trial, CPLR 3212(a) requires that motions for summary judgment must be brought within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue or the time established by the court; where a motion is untimely, the movant must show good cause for the delay, otherwise the late motion will not be addressed … .  * * * Brill draws a bright line based on the two elements of CPLR 3212(a): the statutorily imposed or court-imposed deadlines for filing summary judgment motions, and the showing of good cause by a late movant in order for its motion to be considered. * * *

We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. Rather, we enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as explained in Brill. It is up to the litigant to show the court why the rule should be flexible in the particular circumstances, or, in the words of the statute, that there is “good cause shown” for the delay. * * *

To the extent [the] motion was directed at the complaint, as opposed to any cross claims …, and was not made returnable the same day as the original motion, it was not a cross motion as defined in CPLR 2215. The rule is that a cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking relief from a nonmoving party… . Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 2013 NY Slip Op 08548, 1st Dept 12-24-13

 

 

,

Abstention from Alcohol While Incarcerated and Exemplary Prison Record Did Not Warrant Downward Departure Re: Sex Offender Status/Basics of Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) Proceedings Explained In Some Depth

The First Department affirmed the sex offender status determined by Supreme Court, rejecting the arguments that an exemplary prison record and abstention from alcohol during a long incarceration warranted a downward departure.  The court took the trouble to explain some of the basics of a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) determination:

In assessing a sex offender’s danger to the community, and therefore, its recommendation to the court hearing a SORA application, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (BOSE) must consider 15 statutory factors, applying them in accordance with the Risk Assessment Guidelines developed to assess an individual applicant’s risk of a repeat offense (Correction Law § 168—l[5]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 3 [2006]). The evaluation is made using a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI), identifying each factor which, if applicable, is assigned a numerical value. If a particular factor is not applicable, it is assessed at zero. The values are then tallied, resulting in a recommended risk assessment which is considered as presumptively correct at the SORA hearing before the court … .

One of the factors BOSE considers is “whether the sex offender’s conduct was found to be characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior, associated with drugs or alcohol” … (Correction Law § 168-1[5][a][ii]). The guidelines clarify that if the individual has a history of drug or alcohol abuse “or was abusing drugs and or alcohol at the time of the offense,” 15 points will be assessed in that category (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15). Pursuant to the guidelines, BOSE or the court may choose to score zero points in this category, if the drug and/or alcohol abuse is “in the distant past, but [the defendant’s] more recent history is one of prolonged abstinence” … .

Since defendant admittedly committed his crime while intoxicated, this alone supports the 15 point assessment made against him in this category … . Thus the issue turns on whether his prolonged abstinence from alcohol use, while incarcerated, provides a basis for a 15 point reduction in this category. We find that it does not.

We have consistently held that even when alcohol use in the commission of the crime is remote in time, and the defendant has abstained from alcohol use for a prolonged period while incarcerated, such remoteness and abstinence are unreliable predictors of the risk for re-offense post-release, or to the threat posed by the sex offender to public safety … .   * * *

The SORA court also providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application for a discretionary downward departure to a level 2 based upon claims that he had an exemplary record while incarcerated, has shown remorse for his crime, and is now a productive member of society * * *.

We emphasize that a SORA risk-level determination is not an extended form of punishment for the sex crime committed, but a collateral consequence of the conviction intended to protect the public at large from the possibility of future crime … . A departure from a sex offender’s presumptive risk level is generally warranted only where “there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4…)… .  People v Watson, 2013 NY Slip Op 08379, 1st Dept 12-17-13

 

Part Performance Exception to the Statute of Frauds Does Not Apply to Contracts Which Cannot Be Performed Within One Year

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that the part performance exception to the statute of frauds should not be applied to contracts that cannot be performed within one year.  The court first explained what “capable of performance within one year” means, and then looked at the controlling statute (General Obligations Law 5-701 (a)(1):

Before addressing the central issue of the applicability of a part performance exception for contracts that must be in writing under General Obligations Law § 5-701, I note … the oral contract alleged here was categorized as a contract incapable of performance within one year of its making (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1]). The application of § 5-701(a)(1) is limited to contracts that “have absolutely no possibility in fact and law of full performance within one year” … . “[T]he statute does not include an agreement which is simply not likely to be… performed, nor yet one which is simply not expected to be performed within the space of a year. Neither does it include an agreement which, fairly and reasonably interpreted, admits of a valid execution within that time, although it may not be probable that it will be” … . So, the determination of whether an alleged oral contract can possibly be performed within one year of its making is not conducted by looking back at the actual performance; it requires analysis of what was possible, looking forward from the day the contract was entered into. * * *

Analysis of the part performance exception must begin by emphasizing that General Obligations Law § 5-701 lacks any provision for a part performance exception such as that explicitly provided for by General Obligations Law § 5-703, which concerns contracts for the conveyance of an interest in real property. That is, while § 5-703(4) specifically provides, “Nothing contained in this section abridges the powers of courts of equity to compel the specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance,” the broader statute of frauds provision of § 5-701 contains nothing of the sort – although, notably, it contains other exceptions … .

Two relevant principles of statutory construction apply here. The first is that “a court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there, nor will a court read into a statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to enact” … . The second is that an “inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted and excluded” … . Inferring that the Legislature authorized a part performance exception for an oral contract that is not capable of performance within one year violates these principles. Gural v Drasner, 2013 NY Slip Op 08391, 1st Dept 12-17-13

 

Tenured Teacher Can Not Be Compelled to Testify In a Proceeding Where Such Testimony Would Be Admissible in a Subsequent Department-of-Education Disciplinary Proceeding

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Freedman, the First Department determined a tenured teacher could not be compelled to testify in the New York City School District’s “Special Commission of Investigation” (SCI) proceeding.  The testimony would be admissible in a Department of Education (DOE) disciplinary hearing.  Education Law 3020(1) and 3020-a provides that tenured employees shall not be required to testify at any disciplinary hearing:

Based on the above cited Education Law provisions, the [3rd] Department has held that requiring testimony of a tenured teacher in an SCI proceeding conflicted with Education Law § 3020-a because testimony or evidence obtained at such a hearing would be admissible in a DOE disciplinary hearing. That court said, “no local legislative body is empowered to enact laws or regulations which supersede State statutes, particularly with regard to the maintenance, support or administration of the educational system'” … . * * *

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court …which … denied the petition to compel respondent to comply with a subpoena ad testificandum and dismissed the proceeding … should be affirmed…  .  Matter of Condon v Sabater, 2013 NY Slip Op 08368, 1st Dept 12-12-13

 

,

Uncovered Baseboard Radiator May Constitute an Unsafe Condition Created by Landlord

The First Department determined there were questions of fact about whether the landlord assumed a duty to cover a baseboard heating unit, whether the landlord created an unsafe condition by removing the baseboard heating unit’s cover, and whether the uncovered unit needed repairs or was defective.  The infant plaintiff, who suffers from mental retardation and cerebral palsy, was burned when her face and hand was in contact with an uncovered baseboard radiator for an unknown period of time.  Nina W v NDI King Ltd Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 08202, 1st Dept 12-10-13

 

,

Witness’s Hearsay Statement Should Have Been Admitted as a Statement Against Penal Interest/No Need for Declarant to Be Aware of Specific Violation of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, the First Department determined a (hearsay) statement by a witness indicating she (not the defendant) was driving when the property-damage accident occurred should have been admitted as a statement against penal interest.  The central question was whether the declarant was aware she was admitting to a violation of law when the statement was made:

The decision whether to admit a declaration against penal interest as an exception to the hearsay rule requires, among other factors, that the declarant be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his or her penal interest. The issue in this case is whether a statement in which an individual admits to conduct constituting an offense is a statement against penal interest, where the individual believes that the conduct may be illegal but does not know whether it is or not. It arose in the context of a DWI case where the defense was that defendant, who was intoxicated, was not the driver of the car, but a passenger. Specifically, the driver, a 19-year-old woman with no prior criminal history and only a learner’s permit, who met defendant approximately eight hours earlier, made a statement to a defense investigator indicating that she, and not defendant, was driving defendant’s car at the time it collided with a parked car, but refused to testify at trial on Fifth Amendment grounds. We find that the statement was a declaration against penal interest notwithstanding that some of the witness’s apprehension in making the statement was based on her fear that her parents would learn of her involvement with defendant or that, as the court noted, her exposure to criminal liability was relatively minor. The court therefore erred in keeping the statement out. * * *

…[W]e hold that regardless of whether [the witness] was specifically aware that the conduct she admitted constituted a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600, which prohibits an operator of a motor vehicle who causes property damage from leaving the scene, or whether she was specifically aware that she faced a penalty of up to 15 days’ imprisonment and a fine for that offense, the evidence established that her statement satisfied this hearsay exception. Her expressions, at the time of or immediately after her statement, of apprehension that she could get in trouble for her conduct, including repeated inquiries about consulting with a lawyer, sufficed to satisfy the requirement that “the declarant must be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his [or her] penal interest”… . People v Soto, 2013 NY Slip Op 08217, 1st Dept 12-10-13

 

 

, , ,

Parent Ordered to Pay Attorney’s Fees for Attorney Appointed to Represent the Children Has Standing to Raise Legal Malpractice Defense

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined that father, who had been ordered to pay the attorney’s fees for the attorney appointed to represented the children, had standing to raise the defense of legal malpractice:

…[A] parent may assert legal malpractice as an affirmative defense to the fee claim of an attorney for a child. The attorney for the child, no less than the attorneys for the parties, is serving as a professional and must be equally accountable to professional standards. That the children cannot hire and pay for their own attorneys, leaving it to the court to make the necessary appointment, does not alter the applicable standards, or the means by which they may be raised.  Venecia V v August V, 2013 NY Slip Op 08140, 1st Dept 12-5-13

 

Preliminary Injunction Should Not Have Been Granted—Petitioners Did Not Show a Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of the petitioners.  Petitioners were elected members of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York.  They had been issued Release Time certificates by the Office of Labor Relations (OLR) pursuant to Mayor’s Executive Order #75 (EO 75) which approved full-time leave with pay and benefits.  After the Release Time certificates were issued, the petitioners were indicted for alleged involvement in a ticket-fixing scheme.  The OLR rescinded the Release Time certificates.  Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction reinstating the certificates pending arbitration.  The First Department determined the preliminary injunction should not have been granted because the petitioners failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits:

CPLR 7502(c) provides that the Supreme Court “may entertain an application for … a preliminary injunction in connection with an arbitration that is pending … but only upon the ground that the award to which the applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without such provisional relief.” The party seeking the preliminary injunction must also demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor … . Applying these standards, even assuming that petitioners established that an award in their favor would be rendered ineffectual without provisional relief, as required by CPLR 7502(c), they have failed to make the requisite showing of a likelihood of success on the merits, and therefore have not established their entitlement to injunctive relief… . * * *

Enforcement of EO 75 is committed to the OLR Commissioner, who may issue implementing rules and regulations. The indictments of the individual petitioners on charges related to a ticket-fixing scheme that include allegations of grand larceny, official misconduct, tampering with public records, and criminal solicitation constitute a sufficient basis for the City to determine that the individual petitioners did not “at all times conduct themselves in a responsible manner” … . Accordingly, OLR was entitled to unilaterally rescind the Release Time certificates. Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn of the City of New York, Inc v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 08033, 1st Dept 12-3-13

 

,

NYC Fire Department Cannot Be Compelled to Bargain Over the “Zero Tolerance” Drug-Test Policy for EMS Personnel

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined the “zero tolerance” policy requiring the termination of emergency medical services personnel who fail or refuse a drug test was not subject to mandatory collective bargaining:

This appeal raises the question of whether the New York City Fire Department’s “zero tolerance” policy, requiring automatic termination of certain emergency medical services [EMS] employees who fail or refuse to provide a specimen for a drug test, should have been subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining found that this issue was not required to be bargained, and unions representing the employees brought this article 78 proceeding. We now uphold the Board’s decision because the City Charter provides that the discipline of these EMS employees is the sole province of the New York City Fire Commissioner, and because the Fire Department’s determination of an appropriate penalty for illegal drug use relates to its primary mission of providing public safety. * * *

The Court of Appeals recently reiterated that a public employer cannot be compelled to bargain over “inherent[] and fundamental[] policy decisions relating to the primary mission of the public employer” … . FDNY’s interest in ensuring that its EMS workers are drug-free directly relates to the primary mission of treating and providing transport for sick and injured citizens and ensuring that EMS workers do so safely. This Court of Appeals precedent provides further support for our conclusion that FDNY cannot be compelled to bargain over this fundamental public safety policy decision. Matter of Roberts v NYC Off of Collective Bargaining, 2013 NY Slip Op 07870, 1st Dept 11-26-13

 

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