You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

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

 

, ,

Cause of Action for Fraud Based Upon Alleged Misrepresentation of Insurance Coverage Not Stated

The First Department determined plaintiff had not stated a cause of action for fraud.  The fraud cause of action was based upon defendant’s alleged misrepresentation that it had procured insurance to protect plaintiff against default by the largest subcontractor on the construction project.  It was not disputed that no such insurance was procured:

…[P]laintiff’s fraud claim fails, because “merely alleging that the breach of a contract duty arose from a lack of due care will not transform a simple breach of contract into a tort”…. Plaintiff’s “subjective claims of reliance on defendants’ expertise” do not give rise to a “confidential relationship” whose “requisite high degree of dominance and reliance” existed prior to the alleged fraud…. Defendants had no advisory capacity as to plaintiff, and a special relationship of trust and confidence does not arise merely from an arm’s-length business transaction…. In any event, to maintain a claim for fraud, plaintiff must show that its reliance on an alleged misrepresentation was justifiable or reasonable…. Here, plaintiff neither inquired of the subcontractor nor of the subguard provider if the subcontractor was covered… .Moreover, “[a]n actionable fraud claim requires proof that defendant made a misrepresentation of fact which was false and known to be false”…. A defendant’s knowledge of an allegedly false representation ….must be established…, and plaintiff’s affidavit stating that “it is inconceivable that [defendants] were unaware …was insufficient to establish scienter in this case. Waterscape Resort LLC v McGovern, 2013 NY Slip Op 04709, 1st Dept, 6-20-13

 

, ,

Allegation Release Procured by Fraud Precluded Dismissal of Complaint

In reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of a slip and fall complaint which was founded on plaintiff’s signing a release, the First Department determined plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the release was procured by fraud:

Under the particular facts of this case, dismissal of the causes of action against the owners at the pleading stage was premature because plaintiff has alleged facts showing that her release may have been fraudulently obtained. To make out the basic elements of a fraudulent inducement claim, a plaintiff must establish that the reliance on the false representation was justified…. Whether the plaintiff could justifiably rely on the false representation is an issue of fact…. “The question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is always nettlesome because it is so fact-intensive”…. Moreover, “[w]here fraud . . . in the procurement of a release is alleged, a motion to dismiss should be denied”….  A plaintiff’s reliance on a misrepresentation may be justified even if the plaintiff is represented by counsel … .  Gonzalez v 40 W Burnside Ave, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04685, 1st Dept, 6-20-13

 

, ,

Legal Malpractice Action Based Upon Course of Action Taken in Immigration Proceedings Reinstated

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, the First Department reinstated a cause of action for legal malpractice in an immigration case.  The complaint alleged a law firm followed an unreasonable course of action in pursuing plaintiff’s application for adjustment of immigration status which led to her removal:

Given plaintiff’s allegations that she had no chance of obtaining immigration relief and that defendants failed to thoroughly discuss the possibility, if not certainty, of reinstatement of the order of deportation and removal upon submission of the application, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendants followed an unreasonable course of action in pursuing the application …. Moreover, she has sufficiently alleged proximate cause, because the submission of the application alerted authorities to her status, which led to the issuance of the reinstatement order and ultimately to her removal…. Plaintiff’s unlawful status alone did not trigger her removal, since she had resided in the United States, albeit unlawfully, for more than six years; she was removed only after defendants affirmatively alerted immigration authorities to her presence. The record does not indicate on this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 that plaintiff would have otherwise come to the attention of the immigration authorities. Without discovery on the issue, it cannot yet be said, as defendants assert, that plaintiff would have been deported regardless of defendants’ malpractice. Indeed, had plaintiff waited four more years she would have been eligible to apply for reinstatement under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(ii), which provides that an alien in plaintiff’s position can apply for admission if more than ten years have passed from the date of the alien’s last departure from the United States. Delgado v Bretz & Coven, LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 04720, 1st Dept, 6-20-13

 

,

Error to Impeach Defendant Re: Failure to Offer Exculpatory Version to Police; Error to Comment on Defendant’s Post-Arrest Silence (Harmless However)

The First Department determined it was error for County Court to have allowed the prosecutor to impeach defendant with his failure to present to the police an exculpatory version of events and to allow the prosecutor to comment upon defendant’s post-arrest silence:

County Court erred in allowing the prosecution, over the defendant’s objection, to impeach the defendant’s testimony with his failure to come forward to the police with an exculpatory version of the events, and in allowing the People to comment upon the defendant’s post-arrest silence in summation ….  People v Copp, 2013 NY Slip Op 04619, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

“Mere Nervousness” Does Not Justify Police Inquiry/ More than “Mere Nervousness” in this Case

In finding that the police inquiry was proper because it was prompted by more than merely the defendant’s nervousness (which would not have been sufficient for a suspicion of criminality), the First Department explained:

The Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Garcia (20 NY3d 317 [2012]) does not dictate a different result. In Garcia defendant’s vehicle was pulled over because of a defective brake light. Aside from the faulty light, there was no indication of criminality by the occupants of the car; they merely appeared nervous and acted “furtive[ly]” by “stiffen[ing] up and “looking behind” upon being pulled over (id. at 320). The Court of Appeals agreed with this Court that a defendant’s nervousness, without more, is not enough to give rise to a founded suspicion of criminality that allows for a common-law inquiry. Here, however, apart from seeming nervous, defendant was observed in a drug-prone neighborhood pulling what appeared to be an aluminum foil packet out of his pocket. The arresting officer suspected that the aluminum foil contained cocaine because cocaine is often packaged in that manner. And, unlike Garcia, where the alleged “furtive” behavior was consistent with nervousness over being pulled over, here, defendant’s attempt to block the … officers’ view of the shirt pocket in which he had placed the aluminum packet was consistent with someone in possession of a controlled substance attempting to avoid apprehension. These circumstances were sufficient to give the police the requisite founded suspicion to approach and question defendant.  People v Loretta, 2013 NY Slip Op 04562, 1st Dept, 6-18-13

STREET STOPS

, ,

Irrelevant Information in Presentence Report Should Not Have Been Allowed In “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding

In affirming a jury finding of mental abnormality and a finding that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, the First Department noted that the state’s expert should not have been allowed to testify about respondent’s admission in a presentence report that he was in the vicinity of a rape with which he was never charged:

The court erred in permitting the State expert to testify regarding respondent’s admission, in a presentence report, that he was in the vicinity when a rape, with which he was never charged, was committed. While this statement was sufficiently reliable to show that respondent was in the vicinity of the rape, it was not reliable for the purpose of showing that he committed the rape…. Nevertheless, this error was harmless given the expert’s reliance on two brutal sexual assaults to which respondent pleaded guilty and a third that he admitted committing, and given the court’s appropriate limiting instructions, which served to dispel any prejudice …. Matter of State of New York v Charada T, 2013 NY Slip Op 04548, 1st Dept, 6-18-13

 

,

Significant Limitation Need Not Be Permanent to Constitute Serious Injury; Recent Physical Examination Is Not Prerequisite for Overcoming Summary Judgment

In reversing summary judgment granted to the defendant, the First Department noted that a significant limitation of use of a body function need not be permanent to constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102, and the First Department further explained that its precedent in this area should not be read to require a recent physical examination to overcome summary judgment:

…”[A] significant limitation [of use of a body function or system] need not be permanent in order to constitute a serious injury”…. Indeed, a ” permanent consequential limitation’ requires a greater degree of proof than a significant limitation’, as only the former requires proof of permanence”…. “Insurance Law § 5102(d) does not expressly set forth any temporal requirement,” although assessment of the limitation’s significance does require consideration of its duration in addition to its extent and degree…. Therefore, the lack of a recent examination, while sometimes relevant, is not dispositive by itself in determining whether a plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact in opposing a defendant’s prima facie evidence under the “significant limitation” category.  Our decision in Townes v Harlem Group, Inc. (82 AD3d 583, 583-584 [1st Dept 2011]), should not be read to require a plaintiff to submit a recent examination as a necessary prerequisite to overcoming judgment as a matter of law in every instance of a claim under the “significant limitation” category. To the extent that the Townes Court did require a recent examination, it was due to the specific facts present in that case. Furthermore, the precedents that decision relied upon in requiring a recent examination do not specifically address the degree of proof necessary for a “significant limitation” claim as opposed to a “permanent consequential limitation” claim, instead conflating these two categories of serious injury…. Vasquez v Almanzar, 2013 NY Slip Op 04561, 1st Dept, 6-18-13

 

Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts and Its Acceptance of a Partial Verdict Okay

The First Department determined the trial court, after several days of deliberation, properly questioned the jury whether it had reached a verdict on any of the counts and properly accepted a partial verdict:

The court, which was aware of the travel plans and upcoming religious observance of some of the jurors, properly exercised its discretion when it inquired whether the jury, which had been deliberating for several days, had agreed upon a verdict as to any of the counts submitted, and then accepted a partial verdict…. In accordance with CPL 310.70(1)(b), the court properly instructed the jury to resume deliberations on the remaining counts. The court’s actions did not coerce a verdict as to any counts…, and defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by any of these actions.  People v Campbell, 2013 NY Slip Op 04418, 1st Dept, 6-13-13

 

,

Criteria for Fraudulent Inducement and Attachment

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, the First Department outlined the criteria for fraudulent inducement where the parties are “sophisticated entities,” as well as the strict criteria for attachment:

The elements of fraud are a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was known to be false by the defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or omission, and injury …. In this case, the buyers have not sufficiently alleged justifiable reliance. “[R]eliance must be found to be justifiable under all the circumstances before a complaint can be found to state a cause of action in fraud”…. What constitutes reasonable reliance is “always nettlesome” because it is so fact-intensive…. Sophisticated investors must show they used due diligence and took affirmative steps to protect themselves from misrepresentations by employing what means of verification were available at the time … . * * *

We conclude that, on the extant record which consists of competing affidavits, the grant of an attachment and its confirmation was an abuse of discretion. “[T]he mere fact that defendant is a non-domiciliary residing without the State of New York is not sufficient ground for granting an attachment”…. The sellers have shown no evidence that the buyers lack sufficient assets, or that they will choose to hide or otherwise dispose of their assets. We note that no hearing was held at which the credibility of the buyers’ averments regarding their financial status and resources could be evaluated. At most, the sellers’ affidavits establish that there is potentially a significant amount of bureaucracy involved in obtaining the assets as converted funds. This is not, in itself, sufficient to order an attachment. The orders of the motion court granting and confirming the orders of attachment, and granting discovery to aid in attachment, as well as the order that the buyers transfer assets into New York State, should therefore be reversed.  VisionChina Media Inc v Shareholder Representative Servs, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04298, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

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