You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

Writ of Prohibition Granted to Prevent Trial Judge from Precluding Testimony of Complainant—Complainant Would Not Release His Psychiatric Records

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial judge from precluding the testimony of the complainant in a robbery case. The judge had precluded the testimony after the complainant refused to sign a HIPAA form to release his psychiatric records.  The complainant had acknowledged that he received psychiatric treatment and that he had auditory and visual hallucinations which were controlled by medication.  The First Department wrote:

An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is available to prevent a court from exceeding its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction … . “The writ does not lie as a means of seeking a collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious that error might be . . . but only where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue” … . Here, the court had no authority to issue this preclusion order since the records were neither discoverable nor Brady material … . It is undisputed that the People did not have the complainant’s records and did not know where he had been treated … . The People had no affirmative duty to ascertain the extent of the complainant’s psychiatric history or obtain his records … . The People advised the defense of the information they had regarding the complainant’s diagnosis and also apprised the defense of the complainant’s statements regarding his hallucinations. Therefore, no claim can be made that the People concealed any information from the court or the defense.  Matter of Johnson v Sackett, 2013 NY Slip Op 05663, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

, ,

Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases Allowed Colorado Court to Subpoena a Reporter for Purposes of Testifying About Her Confidential Sources in a Matter Related to the Aurora Movie-Theater Shootings

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, over a two-justice dissent in an opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined a reporter could be compelled to testify, under Criminal Procedure Law section 640.10, in a Colorado proceeding which sought to identify law enforcement personnel who leaked information to the press.  The relevant facts are laid out in the dissenting opinion.  The petitioner in the case is James Holmes, the accused shooter in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater massacre. The respondent is a reporter who interviewed two law-enforcement persons about the contents of a package allegedly sent by James Holmes to his treating psychiatrist.  A Colorado court issued a subpoena to the reporter.  Supreme Court enforced the subpoena under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases (CPL 640.10).  Because the reporter has already appeared in Colorado, the controversy is moot.  But the First Department determined the exception to the mootness doctrine should be applied (important issue likely to recur, etc.). The reporter’s testimony about her confidential sources is protected in New York under Civil Rights Law section 79-h (b). But Colorado’s privilege statute is much weaker. The majority determined the privilege issue was irrelevant to the enforcement of the subpoena.  The dissent argued that the reporter would suffer “undue hardship” within the meaning of the statute if she were forced to reveal her confidential sources (because her livelihood depended on witness-confidentiality).  The majority wrote:

Petitioner furnished the court with a certificate issued, pursuant to the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases (CPL 640.10), by the Araphoe County District Court Judge, and demonstrated that respondent’s testimony was “material and necessary” …, and that she would not suffer undue hardship because petitioner would pay the costs of her travel and accommodations … . …

The narrow issue before the Supreme Court was whether respondent should be compelled to testify, and privilege and admissibility are irrelevant for this determination … . Respondent is entitled to assert whatever privileges she deems appropriate before the Colorado District Court. Compelling respondent to testify is distinguishable from compelling her to divulge the identity of her sources.  Matter of Holmes v Winter, 2013 NY Slip Op 05666, First Dept 8-20-13

 

,

Constructive Condition Precedent Properly Fashioned by Court

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, the First Department agreed with Supreme Court’s fashioning of a constructive condition precedent for the collection of additional rent under a lease. The First Department quoted the controlling law from the Court of Appeals:

“A condition precedent is an act or event, other than a lapse of time, which, unless the condition is excused, must occur before a duty to perform a promise in the agreement arises’ … . Most conditions precedent describe acts or events which must occur before a party is obliged to perform a promise made pursuant to an existing contract, a situation to be distinguished conceptually from a condition precedent to the formation or existence of the contract itself . . . .

“Conditions can be expressed or implied. Express conditions are those agreed to and imposed by the parties themselves. Implied or constructive conditions are those imposed by law to do justice’ … . Express conditions must be literally performed, whereas constructive conditions, which ordinarily arise from language of promise, are subject to the precept that substantial compliance is sufficient. The importance of the distinction has been explained by Professor Williston:

Since an express condition . . . depends for its validity on the manifested intention of the parties, it has the same sanctity as the promise itself. Though the court may regret the harshness of such a condition, as it may regret the harshness of a promise, it must, nevertheless, generally enforce the will of the parties unless to do so will violate public policy. Where, however, the law itself has imposed the condition, in absence of or irrespective of the manifested intention of the parties, it can deal with its creation as it pleases, shaping the boundaries of the constructive condition in such a way as to do justice and avoid hardship’. (5 Williston, Contracts § 669, at 154 [3d ed].)” Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. (86 NY2d 685, 690-691 [1995]).  Mount Sinai Hosp v 1998 Alexander Karten Annuity Trust, 2013 NY Slip Op 05667, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

Applying New Jersey Law—Removal of Safety Guard from Machine Did Not Destroy the Applicability of Workers’ Compensation as the Exclusive Remedy

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed a complaint alleging that a work-related injury was the result of an “intentional wrong” by the employer and, therefore, workers’ compensation was not the exclusive remedy.  The case required the application of New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act, and the interpretation of the statutory term “intentional wrong” pursuant to New Jersey case law.  The injury to plaintiff’s fingers occurred on a machine from which a safety guard had been removed.  The First Department wrote:

…[I]n the present case there were no prior incidents or injuries caused by this machine; there is no evidence of deliberate deceit or fraudulent conduct on defendant’s part; and there were no OSHA violations issued to defendant prior to this incident. Although plaintiff testified that he requested on a number of occasions that the safety guard be replaced, he and other employees continued to use the machine without incident. Significantly, the accident would not have occurred absent plaintiff’s decision to retrieve a piece of stuck leather with his hand, rather than using a long-handled brush or long-handled screwdriver, which was the normal procedure to clear machine jams over the past 13 years that the machine had been in use. In fact, plaintiff testified at his deposition that he used such a long-handled screwdriver over the years to clear jams in the machine. … Thus, there is an insufficient basis for finding that defendant knew that its conduct in not replacing the safety screens was “substantially certain” to result in plaintiff’s injury …, or that there was a “virtual certainty” of injury … . The probability or knowledge that such injury “could” result, or even that an employer’s action was reckless or grossly negligent, is not enough… . Lebron v SML Veteran Leather, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05664, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

, ,

Teacher’s Unsatisfactory Performance Evaluation Annulled—No Supporting Documentation

In an Article 78 proceeding, the First Department reversed the Board of Education’s denial of a teacher’s petition to annul an unsatisfactory performance evaluation because there was no longer any documentation substantiating any instances of corporal punishment in the teacher’s file.  Disciplinary letters concerning allegations of corporal punishment had previously been removed from the teacher’s file by stipulation.  The First Department explained the relevant rules as follows:

It is undisputed that Part 2(I) of DOE’s Human Resources Handbook “Rating Pedagogical Staff Members” provides (1) that a teacher’s evaluation must be supported by documentation in his/her personnel file; (2) that documentation removed from a file through grievance procedures is inadmissible in performance reviews; and (3) that documentation not addressed directly to a teacher is inadmissible in performance reviews, unless it is attached to and part of another document appropriately placed in the teacher’s file. Moreover, materials placed in a teacher’s personnel file must include a signature and date line for the teacher, evidencing that she has read the material and understands that it will be placed in the file, as well as a signature and date line for a witness; unsigned documents are inadmissible in evaluation reviews.  Matter of Friedman v Board of Educ of the City Sch Dist of the City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05598, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

Dismissal of Federal Action Precluded Related Action in State Court—Res Judicata, Privity under Res Judicata Doctrine, Effect of Initial Forum Choice, and “First-in-Time” Rule Discussed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, the First Department determined that Supreme Court should have dismissed the state complaint because the dismissal of the related federal complaint controlled under the doctrine of res judicata.  The lawsuit was brought by the insurer (Syncora) of mortgage-backed securities issued by the defendant (JP Morgan [formerly known as Bear Stearns]). Syncora first sued in federal court where the action was dismissed based on the findings that the fraud allegations Syncora sought to add to the complaint were untimely and Syncora did not have standing because it was neither a buyer or a seller of the relevant securities.  Syncora then filed the state action asserting the same claims rejected as untimely by the federal court.  The opinion addresses several distinct issues: (1) the flexibility of the concept of “privity” in applying the doctrine of res judicata to the parties and “those in privity” with the parties; (2) a finding of “privity” can be based upon the plaintiff’s allegations about the relationship between a party and another entity; (3) a party which makes a strategic decision to first bring an action in one jurisdiction “is bound by the effects of the path it charted…”; and (4) dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) in favor of the earlier-filed federal action was warranted under New York’s “first-in-time” rule.  Syncora Guar Inc v JP Morgan Sec LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05602, 1st Dept, 8-13-13

 

Intervention Not Available to Vacate a Default Judgment—Default Judgment is Not on the Merits and Therefore Has No Res Judicata Effect on Putative Intervenors

The First Department determined a motion to intervene in an action which ended in a default judgment should not have been granted.  Plaintiff sued defendant, which defaulted. Defendant had transferred its assets to the parties seeking to intervene to vacate the default.  Plaintiff had sued the intervenors alleging the transfer of assets from the defendant to the intervenors was fraudulent (the “supplemental proceeding”). The First Department explained:

“[T]he potentially binding nature of the judgment on the proposed intervenor is the most heavily weighted factor in determining whether to permit intervention” … .Here, however, intervenors cannot intervene by arguing that the default judgment has a res judicata effect on the supplemental proceeding and adversely affects their rights in that proceeding. The default judgment has no res judicata effect on intervenors because a default is not a determination on the merits as is necessary to invoke that doctrine … . Likewise, intervenors were not parties to the default action … .  Further, plaintiffs did not obtain the default judgment through fraud or through any other wrongdoing… .  Intervenors’ right to act for defendant ended with the 2007 sale—an event that occurred four years before the clerk entered the default judgment against [defendant].  Amalgamated Bank v Helmsley-Spear, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05600, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Should Have Been Denied—Question of Fact Re: Whether Spanish Document Was a Judgment

The First Department determined that a motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3213 to enforce a Spanish court’s award of damages against the defendant should not have been granted.  Experts disagreed about whether the Spanish document was an enforceable judgment.  The First Department explained the criteria for recognizing foreign decrees (CPLR 5302) and for determining a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213):

A motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213) is based on an “instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment.” The statute allows a plaintiff an expedited procedure for entry of a judgment by filing and service of a summons and a set of motion papers that contain sufficient evidentiary detail for the plaintiff to establish entitlement to summary judgment (see David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3213:8).

CPLR 5302 provides that New York will recognize foreign decrees that are “final, conclusive and enforceable where rendered even though an appeal therefrom is pending.” Here, the parties’ Spanish law experts disagree as to whether the document here, denominated a “ruling” (“auto” in Spanish), is enforceable as a judgment. *  *  *

The conflicting evidence as to whether the ruling is final, conclusive and enforceable in Spain precludes plaintiff from obtaining an accelerated judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213.  Sea Trade Mar Corp v Coutsodontis, 2013 NY Slip Op 05599, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

Supreme Court Does Not Have the Power to Dismiss a Complaint for Delay in Prosecution Absent 90-Notice (CPLR 3216)

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a complaint based on delay in prosecuting the action because the 90-day demand (CPLR 3216) had not been served on the plaintiff.  The First Department wrote:

CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written demand requiring the plaintiff to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days after receipt of the demand, and also stating that the failure to comply with the demand will serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action. Here, the Supreme Court did not possess the power to dismiss this pre-note of issue action on the ground of a general lack of prosecution since the plaintiff had not received a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b) requiring the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue … .  Armouth-Levy v New York City, 2013 NY Slip Op 05551, 2nd Dept, 8-7-13

 

,

Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversed a conviction finding the defendant was denied his right to a public trial. To protect the undercover officer and others, the defendant was excluded from the Wade hearing concerning the validity of the undercover officer’s identification of the defendant.  The trial court, in ordering partial closure of the courtroom, had allowed defense counsel, and colleagues of defense counsel, to be present during the hearing. During the hearing, defense counsel’s officemate was denied entry to the courtroom by the court officer stationed at the door, who had consulted with the sergeant inside the courtroom.  The First Department determined the exclusion of the defendant from the hearing was proper, but the exclusion of the attorney required reversal.  The court wrote:

Here, the undercover was the critical witness, and excluding defense counsel’s colleague from the courtroom during this time was not inconsequential. Furthermore, defense counsel explained that the excluded attorney was his officemate, with whom he had consulted about the case. The court also acknowledged that the excluded attorney had substantial experience in criminal defense cases. Although there would have been a problem even if the attorney had no such experience or connection to the case, the exclusion here was particularly troubling because defense counsel alerted the court that his colleagues might be coming, and the excluded attorney could have been of assistance to defense counsel during this critical phase of the trial … .  *  *  *

…[T]he exclusion of defense counsel’s colleague interfered with the very purpose of the requirement of a public trial. The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored “is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” …. Excluding defense counsel’s experienced colleague, who was familiar with the case, deprived defendant of his right to have this person present to assess the undercover’s testimony, and enabled the People to present the undercover’s testimony without the salutary effects of extra scrutiny.  People v Moise, 2013 NY Slip Op 05550, 1st Dept, 8-6-13

 

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