You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Unsafe Access to Roof Supported Summary Judgment

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) based on the failure to provide equipment which would allow safe access to the roof where the window-washing equipment in need of repair was located, the First Department explained:

The record demonstrates that the Met and Lincoln Center failed to provide adequate safety devices to protect plaintiff from the risks associated with gaining access to the Opera House roof and the steel carriage rail, and therefore they are liable for plaintiff’s injuries under Labor Law § 240(1)…. Not only did plaintiff have to be elevated to the roof of the Opera House from the sixth floor, for which a ladder was provided, but he also had to use both hands to close the hatch door while standing on the ladder. No safety device was provided to protect him against the risk associated with breaking three-point contact with the ladder so as to use both hands to close the hatch door. Mayo v Metropolitan Opera Assn Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 04993, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

Criteria for Domicile Explained

In upholding Surrogate Court’s determination decedent’s domicile was New York, the First Department explained the relevant criteria as follows:

The Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act defines domicile as “[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return” (SCPA 103[15]). “The determination of an individual’s domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location”…. A person’s domicile is generally a mixed question of fact and law, which the court must determine after reviewing the pertinent evidence…. No single factor is dispositive…, and the unique facts and circumstances of each case must be considered…. A party alleging a change of domicile has the burden of proving that change by clear and convincing evidence … .  Matter of Ranftle, 2013 NY Slip Op 05006, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

Plaintiff Unable to Prove Actual Malice—Summary Judgment to Defendant

In determining a libel complaint brought by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) against defendants based upon an ad defendants placed in the New York Times which was captioned “Why is [HSUS] Helping a Terrorist Group Raise Money?” should have been dismissed, the First Department wrote:

The court should have dismissed the amended complaint as against all of the defendants. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it is a public figure…. It thrust itself to the forefront of the public controversy on animal cruelty and sought to influence public action on this issue. Accordingly, as a public figure, plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that defendants published the ad at issue with actual malice in order to prevail on any claim of libel….

“[A] libel defendant’s burden in support of summary judgment is not . . . to prove as a matter of law that it did not publish with actual malice, but to point to deficiencies in the record that will prevent plaintiff from proving that fact by clear and convincing evidence” …. Here, defendants were entitled to summary judgment because they cited deficiencies in the record that prevent plaintiff from proving actual malice (i.e., that defendants “entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [its] publication or acted with a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity . . . at the time of publication”) by clear and convincing evidence…. Humane League of Phila Inc v Berman & Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 04989, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

Elements of Tampering with Physical Evidence

The First Department explained the elements of the offense of tampering with physical evidence as follows:

…[A] person is guilty of the completed crime of tampering with physical evidence when, “[b]elieving that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment” (Penal Law 215.45[2]).

The offense of tampering does not require the actual suppression of physical evidence, but only that a defendant perform an act of concealment while intending to suppress the evidence…. Regardless of whether the defendant is successful in suppressing the evidence, once an act of concealment is completed with the requisite mens rea, the offense of tampering has been committed.  People v Eaglesgrave, 2013 NY Slip Op 05001, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

Detention and Frisk of Juvenile Supported by Reasonable Suspicion

The First Department determined the following scenario provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the detention and frisk of the juvenile:

A police officer testified that she was investigating an unruly crowd when she observed appellant walking towards her with his arm under his shirt, clutching an object held at his waist. Based on the rigidity of his body and how tightly he held the object, she believed it to be a weapon. As he passed by, she heard him say that he was “going to get him.” When she approached with her shield visible around her neck, appellant moved towards her, whereupon she grabbed his hand and felt the handle of a knife. During a brief struggle, the knife fell to the ground. Appellant was placed under arrest and the knife, which had a six-inch blade, was recovered.  Matter of Daquan B, 2013 NY Slip Op 04974 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

, , ,

Only Attorney Can Represent Voluntary Association—Appeals Dismissed

In dismissing the appeals, the First Department held that only an attorney can represent a voluntary association

Petitioner is a voluntary association comprised of rent-regulated tenants in the subject building. Patricia Pillette is a member of the association and appears pro se purportedly on behalf of the association. However, Pillette is not an attorney, and a voluntary association may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York (see CPLR 321[a]). Accordingly, petitioner’s failure to appear by attorney requires dismissal of the appeals… .  Matter of Tenants Comm of 36 Gramercy Park v NYS Div of Hous & Community Renewal, 2013 NY Slip Op 04984, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

, ,

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Allegations Not Specific Enough

The First Department determined plaintiff’s allegations in support of a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action were not specific enough to survive a motion to dismiss:

Because the underlying allegations of wrongdoing were inadequately pleaded, the fiduciary breach and injunction causes of action were not sustainable. Although plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendant tried to prevent her from having any meaningful participation in the companies’ operation, her allegations are vague and conclusory, made without any specific instances of the alleged misconduct…. The lack of particularity with respect to plaintiff’s allegations of breach of fiduciary duty (CPLR 3016[b]) is not excused by the individual defendant’s alleged refusal to provide information or by the lack of discovery, as information regarding the alleged denial of participation in corporate management was not solely in the individual defendant’s possession…. Moreover, plaintiff failed to assert specific dates that she had requested information, or to specify the information she had requested….  Berardi v Beradi, 2013 NY Slip Op 04976, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

, ,

Leaky Condominium Roof Supported Negligence and Nuisance

In an action based on a leaky roof in a condominium, the First Department determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence cause of action against the sponsor and the cause of action for nuisance, also sounding in negligence, should not be dismissed:

The sponsor owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiffs to keep the condominium, including its roof, in good repair (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 78[1];…) . The sponsor breached that duty: Its principal… admitted that the original roof that the sponsor had caused to be installed did not render the condominium watertight and that there were instances of water infiltration into plaintiffs’ unit that needed to be addressed by the sponsor. * * *

Plaintiffs are correct that nuisance can be negligent; it does not have to be intentional…. In any event, they raised a triable issue of fact whether the sponsor’s allowing water to continue infiltrating their unit was intentional….  Liberman v Cayre Synergy 73rd LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04996, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal

In an action based on the allegation a bus was traveling too close to the curb when it struck plaintiff, the First Department (over a dissent) determined testimony that bus drivers’ operating criteria “are much higher than anyone else’s, so I would look at the accident by our standards a lot different from anyone else” required a new trial on liability:

The admission of testimony that holds a defendant to a higher standard of care than required by common law is clearly erroneous…. Moreover, the admitted testimony cannot be considered harmless error because it concerns the ultimate issue to be decided and corroborates unsupported theories of liability proffered by plaintiff’s expert, thereby lending them an unwarranted air of authority. It is well settled that “the duty owed by one member of society to another is a legal issue for the courts”…. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve — as a question of fact — whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff…. As this Court has noted numerous times, “Where the offered proof intrudes upon the exclusive prerogative of the court to render a ruling on a legal issue, the attempt by a plaintiff to arrogate to himself a judicial function under the guise of expert testimony will be rejected”….  Williams v NYC Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04975, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

Res Ipsa Loquitur Applied to Garage Door Suddenly Coming Down

The First Department explained the application of res ipsa loquitur, where it was alleged a garage door suddenly came down on plaintiff’s head, as follows:

The motion court correctly determined that res ipsa loquitur applies in this action involving an accident that occurred, according to plaintiff’s testimony, when a garage door suddenly fell and struck him on the head, since this is the type of event that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence … . Notwithstanding defendants’ contentions that others could have had access to the garage door, plaintiff demonstrated sufficient exclusivity of control. “[R]es ipsa loquitur does not require sole physical access to the instrumentality causing the injury and can be applied in situations where more than one defendant could have exercised exclusive control” … . Hutchings v Yuter, 2013 NY Slip Op 04988, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

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