You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

ONLY A DEFECT APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN WARRANTS SUMMARY DISCHARGE OF A MECHANIC’S LIEN; ANY OTHER THEORY MUST AWAIT TRIAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner should not have been awarded summary discharge of a mechanic’s lien. Summary discharge is available only when a defect in the lien is apparent on the face of the notice of lien. Any other theory must await trial of the foreclosure action:

The court should not have granted the petition for summary discharge of the mechanic’s lien that respondent placed on petitioner’s property. As relevant here, summary discharge of a lien is available “[w]here it appears from the face of the notice of lien that the claimant has no valid lien by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished and for which a lien is claimed” (Lien Law § 19[6]). “[A] lien may be summarily discharged only for defects appearing on its face” … , and “any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial of the foreclosure action” (… Matter of Northside Tower Realty, LLC v Klin Constr. Group, Inc., 73 AD3d 1072, 1072 [2d Dept 2010] [“A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19(6)”]).

Petitioner identifies no defect appearing on the face of the notice of lien, raising instead lack of consent and other issues related to the validity of the lien. Those issues cannot be resolved under Lien Law § 19(6) … . Lien Law § 38 does not provide alternative grounds to affirm the lien discharge, as no court has issued an order requiring respondent to provide an itemized statement … .  Matter of Broadway PT 1710 LLC v Kingdom Assoc., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03624, First Dept 6-9-26

Practice Point: Any defect warranting summary discharge of a mechanic’s lien must be apparent on the face of the notice of lien.

 

THE STAY ON A NEW YORK ACTION TO RECOVER A NAZI-LOOTED PAINTING, PENDING A SWISS RULING ON THE IDENTITY OF THE HEIRS TO THE PAINTING, VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined a stay on a New York action seeking the return of a Nazi-looted painting should be vacated in the interest of just. The action had been stayed pending a Swiss ruling on the identity of the heirs to the painting. That ruling has yet to be made. The facts of the case are complex and cannot be fairly summarized here. Estate of Margaret Kainer v Christies Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03506, First Dept 6-4-26

 

,

THAT PLAINTIFF IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT HAVE A PROPER DRIVER’S LICENSE DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the fact that plaintiff in this traffic accident case did not have a proper driver’s license at the time of the accident did not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence:

… [T]hat plaintiff was driving without a proper driver’s license does not provide a basis for finding an issue of fact as to comparative negligence (see Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [4th Dept 2011] …”[“the absence or possession of a driver’s license is not relevant to the issue of negligence”]). Torres v Occhino, 2026 NY Slip Op 03412, First Dept 6-2-25

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the fact that plaintiff did not have a proper driver’s license does not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence.

 

SUPREME COURT HAD RULED THAT, AT THE TIME HE WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A TASK COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF’S TASK AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT IS NOT DISPOSITIVE; THE LABOR LAW COVERS ALL TASKS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE RELEVANT WORK, HERE THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s activities were within the scope of the Labor Law when he was struck by a falling object. Plaintiff was struck when returning to the truck he had just moved. Defendants successfully argued below that, at the time of his injury, plaintiff was not engaged in work covered by the Labor Law. The First Department disagreed:

Plaintiff was injured when an object, alleged to be a pallet or a skid, fell on his head while he was working as a garbage truck driver at an active construction site owned by defendant MIP One Wall Street Acquisition LLC and where defendant J.T. Magen & Company Inc. was the general contractor. Plaintiff’s employer, Independence Carting, had contracted with J.T. Magen to perform Saturday carting services at the site. Plaintiff drove the garbage truck to the loading area where J.T. Magen laborers tasked with debris removal at the construction site loaded construction debris onto the truck while plaintiff operated the truck’s compacting machinery. J.T. Magen laborers directed plaintiff to move the garbage truck to another location in the loading dock area for additional construction debris to be loaded. At this second location, plaintiff exited the truck to check its position. When returning to the truck he was hit on the head by an object alleged to be a pallet or skid that fell from an elevated platform adjacent to plaintiff’s truck.

Plaintiff’s task at the exact moment of his accident is not dispositive of whether he was engaged in a protected activity … . “Rather, the inquiry includes whether the plaintiff’s employer was contracted to perform the kind of work enumerated in the statutes . . . and whether the plaintiff was performing work ‘necessary and incidental to’ a protected activity” … . Here, plaintiff was performing construction debris removal services at the construction site pursuant to a contract between J.T. Magen and his employer. The record establishes that the work he was performing was necessary and incidental to construction-related cleaning for an active construction site … . Therefore, plaintiff was protected by the Labor Law. Lapinski v MIP One Wall St. Acquisition LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 6-2-26

Practice Point: The exact task performed by a worker at the time of an accident is not dispositive of whether the accident is within the scope of the Labor Law. Here plaintiff’s employer was hired by the general contractor to remove debris from a worksite. The fact that the plaintiff was struck by a falling object after moving a truck at the request of employees of the general contractor did not take the accident out of the scope of the Labor Law.

 

,

THE CONTRACTOR RETAINED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER TO INSTALL AN OIL TANK; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF THE TANK BROKE OFF AND STRUCK HIM; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WERE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against a contractor, Controlled Combustion, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s employer was retained by Controlled Combustion to install an oil tank. A piece of the tank broke off and struck the plaintiff. Controlled Combustion did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work:

Controlled Combustion is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because it established that it did not “actually exercise[] supervisory control over” plaintiff’s work … . General oversight, regular inspections, and authority to stop unsafe work are insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence … . Plaintiff testified that while installing an oil tank in the basement of a building owned by 2350 Broadway, he was struck by a base piece of the tank when the piece detached and fell from an electric chain hoist, which was owned by his employer. Controlled Combustion, a commercial heating company, was retained to perform work in the building, and it in turn retained plaintiff’s employer to install the oil tank. Plaintiff also testified that his employer came up with the plan to move the base piece with a hoist and that all orders of how to do his job came from his employer, not Controlled Combustion. Rosario v C.C. Controlled Combustion Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03279, First Dept 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “supervision and control” over a plaintiff’s work such that the contractor which hired plaintiff’s employer can be liable to plaintiff under Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IS A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT WORKING FOR A NONDOMICILIARY EMPLOYER, SHE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE REGULAR VISITS TO HER EMPLOYER’S CLIENT IN NEW YORK CITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY HARASSED, IN NEW YORK CITY, BY THE CLIENT’S EMPLOYEE; BECAUSE THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT “HAD AN IMPACT IN NEW YORK,” NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York had jurisdiction over this employment discrimination action brought under the NYS Human Rights Law and the NYC Human Rights Law. The plaintiff is a New Jersey resident and Ethicon, alleged to be her employer, is a New Jersey corporation. Plaintiff alleged she was assigned to a sales account for Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. which required her to meet regularly with an manager at Mount Sinai in New York City. Plaintiff alleged Ethicon knew that she would be subject to sexual harassment by the Mount Sinai manager. The First Department held that the term “employer” in the Human Rights Law included the nondomiciliary Ethicon because the discriminatory conduct at issue “had an impact in New York.” ​

​… [T]he issue here is how we should interpret the State HRL’s definition of an “employer” as used in the phrase “all employers within the state” for purposes of liability under the State HRL (Executive Law § 292 [5]). The motion court read this definition as requiring an employer to have a physical presence in New York and therefore found both the State HRL and the City HRL inapplicable to Ethicon, “a New Jersey employer of [plaintiff,] a New Jersey resident.”  * * *

… [T]he Court of Appeals in Hoffman v Parade Publs. (15 NY3d 285 [2010]), adopted an impact test for nonresidents who seek the protection of the City HRL and found that test “relatively simple for courts to apply and litigants to follow, leads to predictable results, and confines the protections of the City HRL to those who are meant to be protected—those who work in the city” …. . * * *

Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York regardless of the residency of the parties. Here, plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleges that Ethicon, her nondomiciliary employer, assigned her to service a New York-based account, requiring her regular presence at Mount Sinai’s hospital where the alleged traumatic sexual harassment occurred. Plaintiff further alleges that Ethicon was aware of the harassment and nevertheless required her to continue the assignment because of the account’s importance. At the pleading stage, plaintiff’s allegations, among other discriminatory acts, that her Ethicon manager discouraged her from complaining and “coached her to ‘lean into’ the sexual harassment so Mount Sinai would continue using Ethicon’s services” are more than sufficient to allege sexual discriminatory conduct having a concrete impact on plaintiff within New York to confer subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s residency outside New York does not preclude application of the State HRL or City HRL where the alleged misconduct occurred in New York City and affected plaintiff while she was working there. Arizzo v Ethicon, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03262, First Dept 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into subject matter jurisdiction under the NYC and NYS Human Rights Law. If a nonresident employee of a nondomiciliary corporation, as part of her job, meets regularly with a client in New York City and is sexually harassed by the client, New York has subject matter jurisdiction over Human Rights Law causes of action.​

 

, , , , ,

MOTHER STABBED HER TWO CHILDREN AND FILED AN INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL; THE SURVIVING DAUGHTER AND FATHER SUED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL ALLEGING MOTHER WAS NEGLIGENTLY TREATED SHORTLY BEFORE THE STABBING; MOTHER WAIVED THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT AND RELATED PRIVILEGES BY FILING THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF MOTHER’S MEDICAL RECORDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined non-party mother had waived the physician-patient and related privileges by filing a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) section 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the prior criminal trial. Mother had stabbed her two children. The instant personal injury action is brought by the surviving child and her father alleging mother was negligently treated by defendant hospital shortly before the stabbing. The plaintiffs sought discovery of mother’s medical records:

Generally, medical records are protected from disclosure (see CPLR 4504 [physician-patient privilege]; 4507 [psychologist-patient privilege]; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c] [privilege for patient information reported to the Office of Mental Health or the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities]). However, a patient can waive those privileges “either expressly by authorizing the record’s release or implicitly by placing his or her mental condition in issue” … . However, simply denying the allegations in a complaint does not constitute such a waiver … . * * *

… [W]aiver of the physician-patient and related privileges in a criminal action generally carries over to a subsequent civil action, provided the defendant’s mental condition remains at issue … . * * *

We are of the view that … the filing of a CPL 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the criminal case was sufficient to demonstrate that [mother]  placed her mental condition at issue so as to waive her privilege to confidentiality of her medical, psychiatric, and mental health records maintained by [defendant]. . S.M. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03248, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Filing a notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in a criminal trial waives the physician-patient and related privileges and the waiver carries over to a subsequent related civil action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKERS SUCH THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD REASONABLY RELY ON THE BROKERS TO RENEW A POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant insurance brokers may be liable in negligence with respect to an audit which led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped. Whether the brokers can be held liable depends on whether there was a “special relationship” between the brokers and the plaintiffs upon which plaintiffs could reasonably rely. The plaintiffs raised a question of fact on the existence of a special relationship:

Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence claim because there are issues of fact concerning whether the parties had a special relationship, exceeding that of a traditional broker-client relationship. Plaintiffs testified that, among other things, defendants advised plaintiffs regarding insurance issues, addressed plaintiffs’ audits, and handled insurance policy changes … . Although defendants’ principal testified that the insurance carrier did not contact defendants during the audit that eventually led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped, one of the individual plaintiffs testified that he had worked with defendants for more than a decade, used defendants for all six of his businesses, and that he would send everything in his possession relating to insurance to defendants, who would in turn take care of it, including when plaintiffs received audit requests from the insurance carrier. In such a situation where “there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on,” a special relationship may arise thereby “creating an additional duty of advisement” even in the absence of a specific request from the insured to the broker … .

There are also issues of fact concerning which party was responsible for managing the renewal process as defendants’ involvement with previous audits may evince a course of conduct demonstrating that the renewals were in fact defendants’ responsibility … . The record evidence does not disprove as a matter of law that defendants’ inaction in renewing the policy did not proximately cause plaintiffs’ injuries … . S & M Bronx Inc. v Diversified Planning Brokerage LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03247, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary to demonstrate a “special relationship” with insurance brokers such that the brokers can be held liable in negligence for failing to renew a client’s policy.

 

,

A MISREPRESENTATION OF PRESENT FACT, UNLIKE A MISREPRESENTATION OF FUTURE INTENT TO PERFORM UNDER A CONTRACT, WILL SUPPORT A FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent inducement cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The fraudulent inducement claim was based on an assertion of present fact. i.e., that the judgment debtor had sufficient capital to close on the property:

We reject defendants’ argument that the fraudulent inducement cause of action is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. “[A] misrepresentation of present fact, unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform under the contract, is collateral to the contract, even though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign it, and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” … . The alleged representations … that the judgment debtor had sufficient capital to close on the property were representations of present fact, not future intent to perform.

Similarly, we reject defendants’ argument that plaintiff seeks identical damages under the fraudulent inducement cause of action and the breach of contract cause of action. Under the circumstances of this case, at this early procedural stage plaintiff is entitled to maintain the fraudulent inducement claim in the alternative to the breach of contract claim … . This conclusion is especially true because the remedy available to plaintiff for fraudulent inducement under the “out-of-pocket rule” is not lost profits but rather “the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong” … . CSN Realty Corp. v Moussaieff, 2026 NY Slip Op 03228, First Deptt 5-21-26

Practice Point: Here the misrepresentation that the judgment debtor had sufficient funds to close was a misrepresentation of present fact which supported a fraudulent inducement cause of action distinct from the breach of contract cause of action.​

 

, ,

PURCHASING AND FORECLOSING ON MORTGAGES IN NEW YORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW; THE LLC CANNOT SUE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff limited liability company (NS194) could not sue in New York because purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in New York under the Limited Liability Company Law:

Supreme Court erred in directing plaintiff to prove NS194’s compliance with Limited Liability Company Law § 802 … . Defendants failed to rebut the presumption that NS194 was not conducting business within the state and lacked capacity to sue pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 802. Plaintiff’s conduct of purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in this state (see Limited Liability Company Law § 803[a][1] [“maintaining or defending any action or proceeding” is not “doing business in this state”] …). … ([S]ee Star201, LLC v Martinez, AD3d , 2026 NY Slip Op 02144, *2 [2d Dept Apr. 8, 2026] [“the mere maintenance of an action [for foreclosure] by a foreign corporation does not constitute doing business within the State”] …). Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Okoronkwo, 2026 NY Slip Op 03253, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: An LLC which purchases and forecloses on mortgages in New York is not “doing business in New York” and therefore cannot sue in New York.​

 

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