You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS WAIVED A DEFENSE WITHOUT THEIR CLIENTS’ CONSENT; THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint should not have been granted. Defendants-attorneys represented Park West. A driver working for Park West was in an accident and both Park West and the driver were sued. The contract between the driver and Park West indicated the driver was an independent contractor. The attorneys, however, conceded the driver was an employee and Park West settled. The essence of the legal malpractice action was the attorneys’ failure to raise the independent-contractor-defense to Park West’s liability. The First Department noted that the evidence indicated the driver may in fact have been Park West’s employee, but that cannot be decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The only relevant question for the motion to dismiss is whether the complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice:

The motion court improperly held that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice against defendants. To state a claim for legal malpractice, a “plaintiff must show that (1) the attorney was negligent; (2) the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s losses; and (3) plaintiff suffered actual damages” … . Moreover, an “attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if but for the attorney’s negligence the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages” … .

Here, plaintiffs argue that but for defendants’ negligence in waiving Park West’s independent contractor defense in the underlying action, without their consent and without disclosing conflicts in their representation of several defendants in the action, they would not have been compelled to settle the action, and they would not have been held vicariously liable for [the driver’s] negligence. Park W. Exec. Servs., Inc. v Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP, 2026 NY Slip Op 00428, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The question at the motion-to-dismiss stage is whether the complaint states a cause of action, not whether the elements of the cause of action can be proven. Here the defendants-attorneys’ waiver of a defense without their client’s consent stated a cause of action for legal malpractice. Whether that defense would hold up at trial is not relevant to a dismissal for failure state a cause of action.​

 

,

DEFENDANT BASED HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, IN PART, ON INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE; GUILTY PLEAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined the misinformation provided to the defendant about his sentencing exposure rendered the pleas invalid:

Defendant was told that he faced the possibility of serving two consecutive 15-year sentences if he elected to go to trial. At most, however, he was facing 20 years because of the statutory cap (see Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e] [i]). Unbeknown to him, he was weighing the benefit of a plea offer of 20 years when in reality, it was the maximum he would serve even if convicted after trial. Defendant was not told about the capping statute and therefore lacked a “full understanding of what his plea connotes and of its consequence” … . This is particularly true because defendant’s guilty plea afforded him the exact sentence he would have served. The record is also clear that defendant remained conflicted about pleading guilty and sought to withdraw his plea.

The totality of the circumstances reflect that defendant’s sentencing exposure played a decisive role in his decision to plead guilty, and his erroneous understanding that he faced 30 years in prison if he was convicted after trial had an “impact on [his] judgment” significant enough to render his guilty plea not knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Ramos, 2026 NY Slip Op 00430, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Here defendant agreed to a 20-year sentence with the understanding he could be sentenced to 30 years after trial. In fact, his sentence after trial would be capped at 20 years. His guilty pleas were not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

 

,

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEY FAILED TO PROVE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO REMEDY THE WET FLOOR, AND THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The slip and fall was related to tracked-in water in the lobby of defendants’ premises. The court noted what defendants failed to prove, i.e., there was a “storm in progress,” they took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet floor, and they didn’t have constructive or actual notice of the condition. The decision provides insight into how those issues can be proven:

Defendants failed to demonstrate that they are protected from liability for plaintiff’s accident by the storm in progress rule. They did not submit any weather reports or expert opinions to show an ongoing storm at the time of plaintiff’s fall, and plaintiff’s conclusory, affirmative response when asked whether it was “snowing when [her] accident happened” is insufficient to show that a storm was in progress … .

… [T]he superintendent … could not recall whether he placed … signs or dry-mopped on the morning of plaintiff’s accident or if he even worked that day. In fact, there was no evidence that a caution sign was placed in the lobby or that anyone had mopped the area prior to the accident, or throughout that day … . Although defendants were not obligated to continuously mop moisture tracked onto the lobby floor by people entering from outside or to cover the entire floor with mats, here plaintiff claims that her accident was caused by a lack of matting on the portion of the lobby between the entrance and the stairway … . …

Defendants … failed to demonstrate when they last inspected the lobby on the day of the accident … . … [T]hey failed to produce a witness to testify that no complaints about the location of plaintiff’s fall were received before the accident and that there were no prior incidents in that area before plaintiff fell … . * * * … [T]he superintendent, who could not recall if he worked on the day of plaintiff’s accident, testified that he could not recall if anyone had complained to him about water on the floor of the lobby and that he had “no idea” about the procedure for tenants to make complaints. Rodney v 840 Westchester Ave, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00435, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what evidence a defendant in a wet-floor slip and fall case should present to prove (1) the “storm in progress” defense, (2) actions were taken to remedy the wet floor, (3) defendant’s lack of constructive notice of the condition, and (4) defendant’s lack of actual notice of the condition.

Practice Point: Note that the plaintiff’s testimony that it was snowing at the time of her fall was not sufficient to prove defendants’ “storm in progress” defense.

 

, , , ,

THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION CHALLENGING TERMINATION OF SECTION 8 RENT-SUBSIDY BENEFITS STARTS WHEN THE TENANT BECOMES AWARE OF THE TERMINATION; THE PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner became aware that the Section 8 rent subsidy benefits were terminated in December 2019 triggering the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination. Therefore petitioner’s 2024 article 78 petition was time-barred:

The four-month statute of limitations applies to proceedings terminating Section 8 benefits, and it begins to run upon tenant’s receipt of the T3 letter advising the tenant of that termination (see CPLR 217[1] …). The statute of limitations may be triggered in the absence of actual notice where, as here, the party knew or should have known about the determination … . The record shows petitioner had actual notice in December 2019, so the statutory limitation period to challenge termination of her subsidy started no later than December 31, 2019, and expired on April 30, 2020, well before she commenced the instant proceeding. Matter of Cruz v New York City Hous. Auth. (NYCHA), 2026 NY Slip Op 00420, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The statute of limitations for bringing an article 78 petition challenging the termination of section 8 rent-subsidy benefits starts when the tenant receives the T3 letter or when the tenant knew or should have known about the termination.

 

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OUTSIDE, NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff tripped and fell outside and not in a “passageway” within the meaning of Industrial Code 23-1.7(e)(1):

… [T]he Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as it was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1), as the accident occurred outdoors and therefore did not take place in a “passageway” within the meaning of the Industrial Code provision (see Quigley v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 168 AD3d 65, 67-68 [1st Dept 2018] [holding that a “passageway” under § 23-1.7(e)(1) pertains to “an interior or internal way of passage inside a building”]). Lacruise v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 00424, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: At least in the First Department, the Industrial Code reference to  “passageway” means an interior passage inside a building, not a walkway outside.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE STANDING ON INSTALLED REBAR WHICH WOBBLED AS A CO-WORKER HANDED HIM A PIECE OF REBAR; HE DROPPED THE REBAR BUT GRABBED IT BEFORE IT FELL ANY FURTHER, INJURING HIS SHOULDER; INJURY WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT AN OBJECT FROM FALLING IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff dropped a piece of rebar while standing on installed rebar which wobbled. The rebar fell about one foot before he grabbed it to keep it from falling further, injuring his shoulder. Injury from attempting to prevent an object from falling is covered by Labor Law 240(1):

Contrary to defendants’ assertion otherwise, they are not entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not fall and was not struck by a falling object … . On the contrary, liability under the statute may be imposed where, as here, a plaintiff can establish that their injury was caused by an attempt to catch something or prevent something from falling further … . The record establishes that plaintiff was injured in the act of trying to catch a falling piece of rebar, and that his injury may have been prevented had defendants supplied a proper hoist to safely transfer the rebar… . According to the evidence submitted, although a crane was sometimes used to transfer heavy rebar at the job site, no crane was available at the time.

… [D]efendants failed to establish that that the previously installed rebar, which was the sole platform available for plaintiff to stand on while his coworkers passed him the rebar from above, was stable and safe for plaintiff to be working on at an elevated height … . Alonzo v RP1185 LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00306, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: Injury when attempting to prevent an object from falling is covered by Labor Law 240(1).​

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A DRILL FELL FROM A CO-WORKER WHO WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER; THE DRILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE CO-WORKER’S PERSON; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this Labor Law 240(1) action was entitled to summary judgment in this falling object case. Plaintiff was struck by a drill which fell from a co-worker standing on an A-frame ladder. The drill should have been tethered to the co-worker’s person:

… [T[he coworker’s elevated work atop the A-frame ladder, warranted overhead protection or tethering of the tools to the coworker’s person to safeguard other workers from falling objects … . Elmaz v CNY Constr. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00313, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: Labor Law 240(1) requires protection against falling objects. Here a tool used by a co-worker who was standing on an A-frame ladder fell and struck plaintiff. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the tool should have been tethered to the co-worker’s person.

 

, ,

THE INSTALLATION OF A TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT AN INTERSECTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A MUNICIPALITY HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE CONDITION; THE COMPLAINT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO “WRITTEN NOTICE” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case should not have been dismissed on the ground the defendant city did not have written notice of the allegedly negligently designed temporary pedestrian signal at an intersection. The written notice requirement does not apply to the failure to maintain or install pedestrian signals. In addition, the expert evidence created a question of fact whether the city created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence:

… [T]he requirement that the municipality have prior written notice of the alleged defect before it can be held liable for injuries arising from the defect does not apply here (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]). The prior written notice requirement applies to physical defects such as holes or cracks in the street, not the failure to maintain or install pedestrian signals … .

Neither plaintiff’s expert nor defendants’ expert, both professional engineers, cite a standard or regulation setting forth specific height requirements for temporary pedestrian signals. In addition, the experts disagree as to whether the temporary pedestrian signal was installed at a proper height. …

An issue of fact also exists as to whether the height or the placement of the signal proximately caused plaintiff’s accident. Although defendants’ expert opined that the temporary pedestrian signal would have been within plaintiff’s field of view, plaintiff testified that he remembered looking for a signal and not seeing one. Plaintiff’s testimony, together with the conflicting expert opinions as to whether the pedestrian signal was installed at a proper height, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the City’s negligence … . Harelick v De La Cruz Lora, 2026 NY Slip Op 00315, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: The requirement that a city have written notice of a dangerous condition before liability for an injury will attach applies to physical defects like holes or cracks in the street. It does not apply to an allegedly negligently designed temporary pedestrian traffic signal.

 

,

THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR FILING A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205 (A)) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION HAS NOT RUN; PLAINTIFF WAS FREE TO COMMENCE ANOTHER ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL ANYTIME WITHIN THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have dismissed because the action wasn’t recommenced within six months of dismissal (CLPR 205 (a)) because the statute of limitations on the underlying cause of action had not run. The six months grace period in CPLR 205 (a) only applies when the statute has run:

… CPLR 205(a) does not apply because “[w]here, as here, the statutory time limit has not expired . . . [CPLR 205(a)] cannot be applied in such a way as to shorten the period otherwise available to the plaintiff” … . The alleged slip and fall took place on August 24, 2021, and plaintiff filed the prior action on April 5, 2022, which was then dismissed by order entered on or about December 7, 2023. Plaintiff then refiled the instant complaint on August 21, 2024, within the three-year statute of limitations for his personal injury claim.

Nor is the refiled complaint barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the order dismissing plaintiff’s prior action was not on the merits … . Defendants moved to dismiss the prior action for failure to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, which was granted “without opposition,” and with no indication that the dismissal was on the merits or with prejudice. Supreme Court was without authority to revise the prior order by adding the words “with prejudice” because that revision substantively changes the prior order … . … [P]laintiff was not required to contest the dismissal of the prior action before commencing this action … . Hermina v 2050 Valentine Ave., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00316, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: The six-month grace period for filing a new action after dismissal (CPLR 205 (a)) only applies if the statute of limitations has run.

 

, , ,

THE PROBATION-CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY THE MANDATORY SURCHARGE AND COURT FEES WAS STRUCK BECAUSE DEFENDANT IS INDIGENT; THE FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE NOT PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) the challenge to the probation condition that defendant pay the mandatory surcharge and court fees survives the waiver of appeal; (2) the condition should be struck because defendant is indigent; (3) the facial constitutional challenges to probation conditions were not preserved:

In determining whether a condition is reasonably necessary and related to a defendant’s rehabilitation, the Court must consider the particular circumstances of a defendant’s case … .

Defendant, who is indigent and a first-time offender, has only sporadic income and otherwise has been supported by his mother. Under these circumstances, the requirement that he pay a total of $375 in surcharges and fees as a condition of probation “will not assist in ensuring [that] he leads a law-abiding life and is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation” … . Accordingly, that condition is stricken. People v Acosta, 2026 NY Slip Op 00324, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: The probation-condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and court fees should not have been imposed on this indigent defendant.​

 

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