You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Chronic Nonpayment Not Subject to 15-Day Cure Period; Chronic Nonpayment is Treated Differently from Occasional Nonpayment

The First Department explained the legal principles which apply to chronic nonpayment of rent as follows:

…[P]laintiff chronically failed to pay its rent, having forced defendant to bring 10 nonpayment proceedings over the last seven years. This is a breach of a substantial obligation under the lease…, and is a type of default that plaintiff cannot cure within the 15-day cure period provided for in the lease …. Accordingly, plaintiff was properly denied a Yellowstone injunction, since that relief requires a showing that plaintiff is able to cure….  Defendant was not limited to a nonpayment proceeding under the term of the lease that provided for such proceedings for nonpayment. Chronic nonpayment is a violation of a different type than occasional nonpayment. Nor can plaintiff rely on any defect of the notice of default, since no such notice is even necessary for an action based on chronic nonpayment….  Definitions Personal Fitness Inc v 133 E 58th St LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04892, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Theories Not Included in Notice of Claim Precluded

In a slip and fall case, the First Department precluded plaintiff from asserting theories of liability not in the notice of claim:

The notice of claim limited plaintiffs’ theory of liability to negligent maintenance, upkeep and repair of the subject staircase, asserting that the infant plaintiff was caused to slip and fall due to a liquid substance on the floor and inadequate lighting. The infant plaintiff testified that he was caused to fall by “slippery juice” that was “all over the stairs.” He testified that he wasn’t able to see all of the juice due to insufficient lighting. Plaintiffs’ new theory, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, that the infant plaintiff was caused to slip and fall due to various design defects including, inter alia, treads and risers of insufficient length, an improperly placed handrail and stairs not coated with nonskid materials, is precluded… Rodriguez v Board of Educ of the City of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 04912, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

Voluntary Participation in Fight Precludes Suit Alleging Inadequate Building Security

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s voluntary participation in a fight severed any causal connection between his injuries and the defendant building owner’s and defendant building manager’s alleged failure to keep the premises safe:

Courts in all four judicial departments have found that one who voluntarily participates in a physical fight cannot recover from a party generally charged with ensuring a safe environment. Thus, in Williams v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Mount Vernon (277 AD2d 373 [2d Dept 2000]), the duty of supervision normally imposed on a school was found to have been displaced by the plaintiff student’s voluntary participation in a fight. Similar results obtained in Borelli v Board of Educ. of Highland School Dist. (156 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1989) and in Ruggerio v Board of Educ. of City of Jamestown (31 AD2d 884, 884 [4th Dept 1969] [holding that “(p)laintiff’s conduct, demonstrating a lack of reasonable regard for his own safety, was a direct cause of the incident resulting in his injury and, as such, defeats his right of recovery against the defendant Board of Education”], affd 26 NY2d 849 [1970]).  This Court in Vega v Ramirez (57 AD3d 299 [1st Dept 2008]) also held that a plaintiff’s willing participation in a fight negates any negligence committed by a defendant with a duty to provide security.  Carreras v Morrisania Towers Hous Co Ltd Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 04893, 1st Dept 6-27-13

THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

,

The Term “Casualty” In Lease Covered Flooding Due to Malfunctioning HVAC System

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was the owner and landlord of a building and defendant was a commercial tenant.  Section 7.04 of the lease stated: “each party releases the other with respect to any claim (including a claim for negligence) which it might otherwise have against the other party for loss, damage or destruction with respect to its property by fire or other casualty . . . occurring during the terms of this Lease” … .  A gauge in the HVAC system burst, causing flooding. Plaintiff sued defendant for the cost of repair, alleging defendant failed to maintain the HVAC system.  The issue was whether the word “casualty” in the lease meant “act of god” only, or included damage from human error.  The First Department (reversing Supreme Court) determined human error was included in the meaning of “casualty:”

[W]here a clause is unambiguous, contract language and terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning…. Here, the lease provides that the parties agreed on mutual releases in case of damage “by fire or other casualty.” In light of this phrasing, in which “other casualty” is placed in the same category as “fire,” it cannot be said that the word “casualty” excludes events resulting from human error. On the contrary, a fire might have myriad causes, many of which do result from human error. However, the parties did not restrict the types of fires that would fall under the release — for example, by stating that only fires caused by severe weather or other natural causes would trigger a release from liability. Accordingly, the phrase “fire or other casualty,” as construed by an ordinary business person, would describe an event, rather than the cause of that event. 45 Broadway Owner LLC v NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund, 2013 NY Slip Op 04895, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

Late Amendment of Complaint (After Note of Issue Filed) Should Have Been Granted

The First Department reversed the IAS court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to serve a third amended complaint.  The court noted that plaintiff’s failure to vacate his note of issue did not require the denial of the motion. In explaining that mere lateness is not a barrier to amendment, the court wrote:

…”[M]ere lateness is not a barrier to . . . amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side . ….. “The kind of prejudice required to defeat an amendment . . . must . . . be a showing of prejudice traceable not simply to the new matter sought to be added, but also to the fact that it is only now being added. There must be some special right lost in the interim, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained what the amended one wants to add”…. Defendants failed to show such prejudice. Jacobson v Croman, 2013 NY Slip Op 04909, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

“Grouping of Contacts” Analysis to Determine Which State’s Law Applies

The First Department noted Supreme Court correctly applied the “grouping of contacts” analysis in determining whether New York or Maryland law applied in an action to determine which insurance company was required to defend and indemnify.  The First Department further noted that late notice to the carrier because of the need to investigate did not warrant the carrier’s disclaimer of coverage.  Addressing the “grouping of contacts,” the court explained:

The motion court correctly determined that, under the standard “grouping of contacts” analysis, New York law, rather than Maryland law, applies in this case …. Indeed, the subcontract between Hayward Baker and Schiavone involved construction services at a site located in New York, Schiavone formed a joint venture in New York to perform those services, the accident and resulting litigation occurred in New York, Zurich asserts that it is a New York corporation with a home office in New York, Illinois National is licensed to do business in New York, and the demand letters and responses were sent from the parties’ New York offices … .  Illinois Natl Ins Co v Zurich Am Ins Co, 2013 NY slip Op 04881, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

, ,

Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversed the sentencing court’s vacation of defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea).  The sentencing court had reversed the conviction on the ground defendant had not been informed of the risk of deportation based on the plea.  The sentencing court’s ruling was based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), which the sentencing court determined should be applied retroactively.  The First Department explained that Padilla should not be applied retroactively, overruling First Department and 3rd Department precedent:

Padilla has been accorded retroactive application by this Court …and the 3rd Department…. However, since Padilla “marks a break from both Federal and State law precedents . . . and fundamentally alters the Federal constitutional landscape, the principles of retroactivity developed by the Supreme Court in construing Federal constitutional law govern the disposition of this case” (People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]).

The holding that Padilla announced new law, by which this Court is bound, dictates the conclusion that it has no retroactive application. As Eastman explains:  “Pursuant to Teague, new rules of constitutional criminal procedure are applied retrospectively in one of two situations: (1) where the new rule places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law making authority to proscribe’ or (2) where the new rule alters a bedrock procedural element of criminal procedure which implicates the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the trial” (Eastman, 85 NY2d at 275, quoting Teague, 489 US at 311-312).

The rule announced in Padilla does neither, merely prescribing a duty imposed on counsel, and does not warrant retroactive application. Thus, defendant may not avail himself of the ruling… People v Verdejo, 2013 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Supreme Court’s Denial of Application for Stationary Engineer License Based on Applicant’s Criminal Record Reversed

The First Department, in this and several other similar rulings, reversed Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a stationary engineer license determining that petitioner’s criminal record bore no relationship to the duties of a stationary engineer:

The determination to deny petitioner’s renewal application for a stationary engineer license was in violation of lawful procedure and lacked a rational basis. Respondents arbitrarily concluded that petitioner’s prior federal conviction for conspiracy bore a direct relationship to the duties and responsibilities attendant to a stationary engineer, the license for which he sought renewal after having his license renewed several times (see Correction Law § 750[3]; 752[2];…. Petitioner’s prior conviction resulted from the misuse of his administrative powers in his former position, which granted him control over hiring, payroll, and selection of vendors. Such actions bear no direct relationship to the equipment maintenance duties and responsibilities inherent in the stationary engineer license, and thus do not satisfy the first exception to the general prohibition of discrimination against persons previously convicted of criminal offenses (see Correction Law § 752[1]).  Matter of Donovan v LiMandri, 2013 NY Slip Op 04737, 1st Dept 6-25-13

 

,

Company Hired on On-Call Basis for Elevator Repair Not Liable for Allegedly Faulty Elevator Door Interlock Where Last Repair Made 13 Months Before Accident

Plaintiff’s decedent fell down an elevator shaft, allegedly due to the condition of a door interlock.  The First Department determined the wrongful death complaint against New York Elevator and Electrical Corporation (NYE) should have been dismissed because the company was retained only on an on-call basis for repairs and there was no evidence NYE was negligent when it inspected the elevator 13 months before the accident:

The amended complaint should have been dismissed as against defendant/third-party plaintiff NYE in its entirety. NYE did not have an exclusive agreement with Broadway to maintain or service the freight elevator…. It was merely retained on an on-call basis to make specific repairs and inspections and, therefore, did not have a duty to inspect or repair unrelated defects…. Indeed, NYE may only be held liable if it failed to exercise reasonable care in making any requested repairs or inspections….  Casey v New York El & Elec Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 04745, 1st Dept 6-25-13

 

Procedure for Applying to be a “Defender” in America’s Cup Regatta, as Alleged in Complaint, Constitutes an “Offer” and “Acceptance”

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in the context of whether the complaint stated a cause of action sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, determined that the procedures in a Deed of Gift and Protocol for the America’s Cup sailing regatta constituted and “offer” and “acceptance” resulting in an enforceable contract with the plaintiff which had applied to be a “Defender Candidate” in the regatta.  A lengthy and well-reasoned dissent by Justice Tom argued that the procedures did not amount to an offer because the defendant was free to accept or reject any applicant in the exercise of judgment.  The opinion and dissent discuss the most basic “offer” and “acceptance” criteria for an enforceable contract.  African Diaspora Mar Corp v Golden Gate Yacht Club, 2013 NY Slip Op 04752, 1st Dept 6-25-13

 

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