You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Negligence of Dog Owners In Calling A Dog Which Ran Into Bicyclist’s Path Is Actionable

Over a two-justice dissent, the First Department determined a lawsuit alleging the negligence of dog owners could go forward.  Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when plaintiffs caused their dog to run into plaintiff’s path. After noting a change in the Court of Appeals’ approach to animal-caused injuries that are not the result of vicious propensities, the court wrote:

Recently, however, the Court of Appeals revisited Bard and Petrone when it decided an appeal of Hastings (94 AD3d 1171). In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendants, the Court recognized that an accident caused by an animal’s “aggressive or threatening behavior” is “fundamentally distinct” from one caused by an animal owner’s negligence in permitting the animal from wandering off the property where it was kept (21 NY3d 122, 125 [2013]). The Court stated that the consequence of a blanket rule against negligence claims in cases where animals displayed no vicious propensities “would be to immunize defendants who take little or no care to keep their livestock out of the roadway or off of other people’s property” (id.). * * *

Defendants’ actions can be likened to those of two people who decide to toss a ball back and forth over a trafficked road without regard to a bicyclist who is about to ride into the ball’s path. If the cyclist collided with the ball and was injured, certainly the people tossing the ball would be liable in negligence. Simply put, this case is different from the cases addressing the issue of injury claims arising out of animal behavior, because it was defendants’ actions, and not the dog’s own instinctive, volitional behavior, that most proximately caused the accident. Doerr v Goldsmith, 2013 NY slip Op 06442, 1st Dept 10-3-13

 

Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Voluntarily Discontinue Lawsuit

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have permitted plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue the lawsuit:

The court erred in declining to permit plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue the action. CPLR 3217(b) authorizes a court to grant a motion for voluntary discontinuance “upon terms and conditions, as the court deems proper.” While the determination upon such an application is generally within the sound discretion of the court …, a party ordinarily cannot be compelled to litigate and, absent special circumstances, such as prejudice to adverse parties, a discontinuance should be granted … . No special circumstances have been shown here, especially since the action is still in the early stages of litigation. Nor was there any showing that plaintiff sought the discontinuance only to avoid an adverse determination in this action ,,, . Since we are granting plaintiff’s motion, the cross motion to compel discovery must be denied.  Bank of Am NA v Douglas, 2013 NY Slip 06440, 1st Dept 10-3-13

 

, ,

Relief Granted By Court Went Too Far Beyond Relief Requested

In a partition action, the First Department determined Supreme Court ordered relief which went too far beyond the relief requested in the motion papers and explained the relevant principles:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), a court may relieve a party from an order or judgment, but only “on motion of [an] interested person” and “with such notice as the court may direct” (CPLR 5015[a] [emphasis added]…). ” Pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party, or is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based. However, a trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment'” … . Likewise, while a court “may grant relief, pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion or order to show cause, other than that specifically asked for, to such extent as is warranted by the facts plainly appearing [in] the papers on both sides,” it may do so only “if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, and if the proof offered supports it and the court is satisfied that no one has been prejudiced by the formal omission to demand it specifically” … .  Carter v Johnson, 2013 NY Slip Op 06333, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

 

Mother Demonstrated Relocation to Mississippi Was In Best Interest of Child, Job and Family Support Available

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department reversed Family Court and granted the mother’s petition for relocation with the couple’s child to Mississippi.  The mother’s inability to find sufficient work in New York, after several years of effort, coupled with job offers in Mississippi and the support of grandparents in Mississippi, were important factors:

In this relocation case, where respondent mother, Elizabeth E., seeks permission to move with the parties’ child to Oxford, Mississippi, we are once again confronted with the problem of balancing a child’s need for the ongoing presence of both parents in his daily life, with the custodial parent’s proven inability to support herself and the child beyond the subsistence level here in New York. * * *

Admittedly, the mother here is not (yet) destitute. Her financial situation is certainly not as bleak as that of the mother in Matter of Melissa Marie G. v John Christopher W. (73 AD3d 658, 658 [1st Dept 2010]), where this Court affirmed the grant of the mother’s application to relocate with the parties’ child to a stable home near the mother’s family in Florida, after she and the child had lived in a series of homeless shelters. However, while the need to improve the mother’s and child’s economic situation was far more extreme in that case, we find that the present relocation application was prompted by a legitimate, pressing need for a secure economic situation. Not only do we reject the unsupported suggestion that the mother actually had other, hidden, means of support, but we observe that proof of economic necessity does not require the parent to wait until she has used up every last dollar of her savings before taking steps to ensure that she will be able to care for the child’s future economic needs. Matter of Kevin McK v Elizabeth AE, 2013 NY Slip Op 06328, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

Defendant Failed to Raise Question of Fact About Lack of Notice of Icy Condition

Over a dissent, the First Department determined the defendant in a slip and fall case failed to raise a question of fact re: its claim it did not have notice of the icy condition on the sidewalk. The court explained that the defendant failed to offer sufficient evidence of the condition of the sidewalk before the fall:

Plaintiff correctly contends that defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden since they did not submit evidence sufficient to establish that they did not have constructive notice of the hazardous icy condition on the sidewalk in front of their franchise restaurant on which plaintiff allegedly slipped …. In cases involving slip and falls on icy sidewalks, a defendant moving for summary judgment must proffer evidence from a person with personal knowledge as to when the sidewalk was last inspected or as to its condition before the accident … . …

Defendants’ supervisor, who only visited that franchise twice per week, attested that the employees would typically respond to winter storms by shoveling the sidewalk, and then applying rock salt. However, she had no personal knowledge of whether this procedure was followed in response to this storm, did not aver that she was present on either the day of the storm or the accident, and offered no evidence as to when the sidewalk had last been inspected or cleaned of snow, ice, or other debris. Hence, defendants’ evidence was “not probative of lack of actual or constructive notice,” and the evidence of their general procedures, standing alone, was insufficient to satisfy their burden on summary judgment …. As defendants failed to meet their initial burden, the motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Rodriguez v Bronx Zoo Rest. Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06294, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

, ,

Writ of Prohibition Barring Retrial Granted—Mistrial Granted Without Consent of Defendant Was Not Justified

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition barring a retrial of the defendant because the judge ordered a mistrial without the consent of the defendant based upon a comment made by defense counsel in summation. The First Department determined the comment was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify the mistrial:

Jeopardy attaches once a jury has been selected and sworn … . When a mistrial is declared without the consent or over the objection of a criminal defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York State Constitution bars retrial for the same offense or offenses unless there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated … . Here, as the People concede, counsel’s summation comment was not overly prejudicial and provided no basis for a mistrial on “manifest necessity” or “ends of public justice” grounds. Matter of Smith v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 06329, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

,

Canadian Attorney Practicing in New York Properly Convicted of Unlicensed Practice of Law

The First Department affirmed the conviction of a Canadian attorney (not admitted in New York) whose New York law firm, which employed members of the New York bar, represented clients in immigration matters. The complainants were former clients who testified they retained the defendant’s law firm based upon their belief defendant was licensed to practice in New York. The complainants testified they did not receive the services they paid for and were not refunded their money.  The defendant was charged with grand larceny, scheme to defraud and unlicensed practice of law.  The First Department determined there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions even though there was no evidence defendant explicitly represented she was licensed to practice law in New York.  Several unique issues were discussed including: the Attorney General’s (AG’s) loss of documentary evidence (advertisements and retainer agreements) so the appellate court was unable to review them; the Attorney General’s jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution under Executive Law 63; the power of the Division of State Police to request that the Attorney General prosecute the case; the law of the case with respect to the First Department’s reversal of defendant’s conviction after her first trial and its refusal to dismiss the indictment; and the trial court’s refusal to substitute counsel for the defendant and giving defendant the choice to proceed pro se (which she did).  In discussing the sufficiency of the evidence, the First Department wrote:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the AG, as we must …, we find that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. It was not unreasonable for the jury to have concluded that by promoting herself in an advertisement as being a lawyer specializing in immigration, and having an office in New York, defendant intended to signal that she was licensed to practice in New York. That some of the lawyers working in the office were admitted in New York is of little moment, since defendant traded almost exclusively on her own reputation and expertise in seeking to attract clientele. Further, the fact that defendant’s advertisements made clear that she was admitted to practice in Canada did not preclude the possibility that a client would reasonably believe that she was also admitted in New York, but found it unnecessary to publicize that fact based on her location in Manhattan.

It was also not irrational for the jury to conclude that defendant had an economic motive for concealing her lack of a New York license, despite the fact that such a license was not necessary to process her clients’ immigration applications. Aside from the cachet that prospective clients would have attributed to having a lawyer who was a member of the New York bar, the jury could have concluded that CPI’s clients valued the fact that the attorney they retained was subject to the jurisdiction of local disciplinary authorities if they were unsatisfied with defendant’s work (as many of them were). Indeed, it is clear that CPI’s clients placed a large premium on defendant’s bar status, given that each of them testified that they would not have retained the firm had they known that defendant was not admitted to practice in New York. People v Codina, 2013 NY Slip Op 06291, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

Criteria for Denial of Trustee Commission for Misconduct Explained (Commission Was Not Denied Here)

The First Department explained the criteria for determining whether a trustee can be denied an annual commission for misconduct.  The court ultimately concluded the commission should not be denied in this case:

We conclude that courts have the discretion to take into consideration all of a trustee’s misconduct in determining the grant of annual commission, even conduct that occurred after the period applicable to the commission. Although there are no appellate cases on point, no New York case holds otherwise. As a basic principle, the Surrogate has broad discretion to deny commission to a trustee if the trustee has engaged in misconduct … . In determining if a commission should be denied, misconduct that is not directly related to the commission being sought may be taken into consideration … . The Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 243 supports this conclusion with a multi-factor analysis (Comment c). Among the factors to be considered under the Restatement in determining if a commission should be denied are whether the trustee acted in good faith, if the misconduct related to management of the whole trust and if the trustee completed services of value to the trust (id.). We conclude, therefore, it is within the court’s discretion to determine whether the trustee’s later misconduct bars her from receiving commission.

Trustees can be denied commission “where their acts involve bad faith, a complete indifference to their fiduciary obligations or some other act that constitutes malfeasance or significant misfeasance” …. The denial of a commission, however, should not be “in the nature of an additional penalty” (Restatement 243, Comment a). Rather, it should be based on the trustee’s failure to properly serve the trust, not designed as an additional punishment … . Indeed, even the beneficiaries in this case state that it will be rare that a trustee’s later misconduct will serve as the basis for a denial of commission. Matter of Gregory Stewart Trust, 2013 NY Slip Op 06079, 1st Dept 9-26-13

 

, ,

In Spite of Settlement of Underlying Action, the Legal Malpractice Case Alleging Failure to Adequately Investigate Can Go Forward

Plaintiff was attacked and injured in the lobby of his building.  He hired an attorney to bring a premises liability action.  The action was ultimately settled, but plaintiff brought a legal malpractice action against the defendant attorney alleging the attorney did not adequately investigate the security of the building.  The First Department determined that plaintiff, who was described as unsophisticated in legal matters, had stated a cause of action because the defendant attorney admitted he had relied entirely on a brief conversation with the plaintiff about the security situation at the building before recommending settlement.  The First Department explained the relevant principles as follows:

For a claim for legal malpractice to be successful, “a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for’ the attorney’s negligence” … . A client is not barred from a legal malpractice action where there is a signed “settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that the settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” … . * * *

In this specific case, given plaintiff’s lack of sophistication and his limited education, defendant’s statement that he never conducted any investigation, except for speaking to plaintiff for a very limited time, raises a question of fact as to whether defendant adequately informed himself about the facts of the case before he conveyed the settlement offer. Furthermore, defendant says he told plaintiff, when he conveyed the settlement offer, that it was a “difficult liability case.” It is difficult to understand, on the record before us, how he made that assessment without going to the building, or speaking to the superintendent. Angeles v Aronsky, 2013 NY Slip Op 05955, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

,

Ambiguity of Contract Is a Question of Fact Where Credibility of Extrinsic Evidence Must Be Assessed

The First Department determined there was question of fact whether defendant signed a note in his personal as well as corporate capacity. The court explained the relevant analysis where a contract is ambiguous:

A contract is ambiguous if “on its face [it] is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” … . The determination whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court … . If the court deems a contract ambiguous, it may consult extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity … . However, where “the determination of the parties’ intent depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence or a choice among inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then the issue is one of fact” … .  Chen v Yan, 2013 NY Slip Op 05957, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

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