You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

“Sole Proximate Cause” Defense Not Demonstrated

In reversing Supreme Court and granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the First Department determined the facts did not support the defense that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff was injured when a drill rig fell after safety chains had been removed. The First Department determined the facts demonstrated plaintiff was not solely responsible for removing the safety chains and, therefore, the “sole proximate cause” defense was not available:

The sole proximate cause defense generally applies where the worker misused, removed, or failed to use an available safety device that would have prevented the accident, or knowingly chose to use an inadequate device despite the availability of an adequate device …. However, “the Labor Law does not require a plaintiff to have acted in a manner that is completely free from negligence” … .

Plaintiff did not unilaterally elect to remove the chains and chain binders. Clark, the dock builder foreman who had the discretion to make the determination in the field as to the manner in which the drill rig would be moved, determined that the drill rig could not be pivoted with the chain binders attached, a belief plaintiff shared … .  Boyd v Schiavone Constr Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03578, 1st Dept, 5-16-13

 

, ,

Ratified Release Precluded Employment Discrimination Action

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs employment discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment claims.  Plaintiffs signed a release and received severance pay based upon the terms of the release.  The First Department determined plaintiffs’ claims that the signed the release under duress were foreclosed by their ratification of the release (accepting the severance pay):

The motion court should have dismissed the complaint in its entirety. “Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release” …. A release will not be treated lightly because it is a “a jural act of high significance without which the settlement of disputes would be rendered all but impossible” …. Where the language is clear and unambiguous, the release is binding on the parties unless it is shown that it was procured by fraud, duress, overreaching, illegality or mutual mistake … . *  *  *

Assuming arguendo that issues of fact exist as to duress and overreaching, plaintiffs are nevertheless barred from challenging the releases on those grounds because they ratified the releases. Ratification occurs when a party accepts the benefits of a contract and fails to act promptly to repudiate it…. Thus, a plaintiff cannot claim that he or she was compelled to execute an agreement under duress while simultaneously accepting the benefits of the agreement …  Allen v Riese Org, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03547, 1st Dept, 5-16-13

 

“Sophisticated and Well-Counseled Entity” Did Not Make Prima Facie Claim of Fraud; No Due Diligence Demonstrated

In reversing the motion court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action for fraud, the First Department, over a strong dissent, determined the complaint did not, as a matter of law, establish justifiable reliance upon alleged misrepresentation.  In essence, the First Department determined that “sophisticated and well-counseled entities,” to preserve a prima facie claim of fraud, must demonstrate due diligence in taking measures to protect against fraud:

Plaintiff alleges that it was fraudulently induced to issue a financial guaranty for a portion of an investment by defendant’s misrepresentation that a nonparty hedge fund was taking a long position in the investment when in fact, such fund was actually a short seller, which was influencing the selection of the reference portfolio it was effectively betting against. ……[P]laintiff’s amended complaint …fails to establish justifiable reliance as a matter of law. Indeed, plaintiff fails to plead that it exercised due diligence by inquiring about the nonpublic information regarding the hedge fund with which it was in contact prior to issuing the financial guaranty, or that it inserted the appropriate prophylactic provision to ensure against the possibility of misrepresentation…. ACA Fin Guar Corp v Goldman, Sachs, & Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 03429, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

, , ,

Exclusion of Petitioner from Hearing During Testimony of Primary Witness Required Vacation of Award

The exclusion of petitioner from an administrative hearing during the testimony of the only eyewitness to an alleged assault by petitioner required vacation of the arbitrator’s award.  The First Department wrote:

Petitioner’s exclusion from the administrative hearing during the testimony of the only eyewitness to her alleged hitting of a student—the student himself—violated her constitutional right to confront the witnesses against her …. Nothing in the record indicates that a compelling competing interest warranted the exclusion. There is no finding that petitioner’s presence would cause trauma to the student or substantially interfere with his ability to testify. Indeed, the record contains no indication at all of the basis for the exclusion. Petitioner contends that in addition to her constitutional right she had an absolute right to confront witnesses under Education Law § 3020-a. However … there is no such absolute right under § 3020-a… .  Matter of Stergiou v NYC Dept of Educ, 2013 NY Slip Op 03432, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

,

Whether the “Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Pertained to an Arson Is a Question of Fact Which Depends Upon the Motives of the Arsonist

A fire in plaintiff’s building left several people dead or injured.  A person was arrested and charged with arson in connection with the fire. The plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the defendant insurance company was required to defend and indemnify plaintiff.  The main issue was whether the policy exclusion of damages caused by assault and battery applied. The First Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the insurance company’s affirmative defenses, i.e., the assault and battery exclusion and the lack of bodily injury caused by accident or occurrence.  The First Department wrote:

Civil assault and battery are intentional acts, and the assault offenses with which the accused arsonist is charged do not include the intent to harm a specific individual (compare PJI 2d 3:2 [assault]; 3:3 [battery], with Penal Law 120.10[4] [assault in the first degree]; 120.05[6] [assault in the second degree]). Thus, assuming that the insurance policy exclusion is triggered by civil, rather than criminal, assault or battery, the critical inquiry is whether the accused arsonist, in allegedly causing the fire, intended to harm any occupant of the building. Although the determination of the criminal action is therefore not necessary to a determination of the application of the exclusion, the criminal trial may shed light on the accused arsonist’s motives, including whether he intended to harm anyone inside the building. In any event, the criminal trial may enable defendant to obtain access to evidence and witnesses that will assist in determining whether the exclusion applies. Based on representations made at oral argument, the criminal trial has been concluded and, thus, the stay should be lifted. In light of the foregoing, the motion court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses based on the assault and battery exclusion and the lack of bodily injury caused by an accident or occurrence.  20-35 86th St Realty, LLC v Tower Ins Co of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 03413, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Discharged

The plaintiff law firm brought breach of contract cause of action to recover contingency fees under a written retainer agreement.  The motion court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground the law firm had been discharged.  In reversing the motion court, the First Department wrote:

Although no particular formality is required, the discharge of an attorney is effected by “[a]ny act of the client indicating an unmistakable purpose to sever relations . . .”…. The motion should not have been granted because the amended complaint and the documents attached to it set forth no facts from which an unmistakable purpose to sever the attorney-client relationship can be discerned. … A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action “must be denied if from the pleadings’ four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law'” … .  Anderson & Anderson, LLP … v North American Foreign Trade Corp, 2-13 NY Slip Op 03430, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

, ,

Governmental Immunity Applied to Preclude Recovery by Bicyclist​

In finding the City was not liable for injury to a bicyclist because of governmental immunity, the First Department wrote:

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when his bicycle hit a depression in a grassy area, after he was diverted from the bicycle path in a City park due to cleaning activities by defendants’ employees on a retaining wall, defendants moved to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s… * * *  …[D]ismissal of the complaint is warranted on the … ground … that defendants’ employees were engaged in a governmental function giving rise to the governmental immunity defense. Diverting traffic to protect the public from the harsh chemicals used in the cleaning process was a discretionary act performed by public employees in the exercise of reasoned judgment … . Stashkevetch v City of New York, 2013, NY Slip Op 03418, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

, , ,

Assumption of Duty to Maintain Sidewalk; No Expert Notice Needed for Treating Physician

In reversing a judgment after a jury trial in a slip and fall case, the First Department discussed several issues that came up in the trial, including the denial of a missing witness charge with respect to one of the defense doctors, a translation problem raised by the translator (which may have given the jury the misimpression plaintiff was confused about an important issue), the assumption by the defendant Department of Education (DOE) of a duty to make the sidewalk outside a school (where plaintiff fell) safe, and the trial court’s ruling that one of plaintiff’s treating physicians could not testify because no “expert witness” notice was provided.  In addressing the school’s assumption of a duty with respect to the condition of the sidewalk and the exclusion of plaintiff’s treating physician, the First Department wrote:

The DOE argues on appeal that the action should have been dismissed as against it because it did not own the sidewalk where plaintiff fell. New York City Charter § 521(a) provides that “title to all property … acquired for school or educational purpose … shall be vested in the city, but under the care and control of the board of education for the purposes of public education, recreation and other public uses.” Education Law § 2554(4) affirmatively charges the DOE with responsibility for “the care, custody, control and safekeeping of all school property or other property of the city used for educational, social or recreational work.” ……[W]here there was evidence that the DOE affirmatively undertook the duty to maintain the sidewalk, the court was well within its discretion in submitting the question of the DOE’s negligence to the jury ….

CPLR 3101(d)(1) provides that, upon request, parties must identify those expected to be called as experts and “disclose in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify … and a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.” However, the failure to serve a CPLR 3101(d) notice with regard to a treating physician, such as Dr. Geller, is not grounds for preclusion of the physician’s expert testimony as to causation where there has been disclosure of the physician’s records and reports, pursuant to CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17 … .  Hamer v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 03431, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

Assumption of Risk Extends to Condition of Outside Basketball Court

The First Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant finding that the plaintiff basketball player assumed the risks associated with playing basketball on defendant’s outdoor court:

Plaintiff, an experienced basketball player who had played on the subject court on numerous occasions, was injured when, while heading toward the rim to take a shot, his ankle twisted and he heard his knee “pop,” causing him to fall to the ground. Plaintiff observed that the court was cracked, repaired and uneven, which he believed to be the cause of his fall. Under the circumstances, dismissal of the complaint was proper since plaintiff assumed the risks associated with playing basketball or warming up to play basketball on this outdoor basketball court… . Felton v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03423, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

,

Review Criteria for Arbitration Award Explained; Contract Entered Into by Unlicensed Interior and Architectural Design Business Did Not Violate Public Policy

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, the First Department upheld an arbitrator’s award which had been confirmed by Supreme Court.  The issue at the heart of the case was whether the fact that the petitioner’s interior and architectural design business did not have a license to practice architecture warranted a finding that a contract entered into by the petitioner with the respondents violated public policy (such that the respondents did not have to pay for services rendered).  Justice Mazzarelli, after collecting relevant cases, determined there was no violation of public policy. The petitioner employed a licensed architect and periodically used a licensed and registered architect as an outside consultant.  In explaining the court’s role in reviewing an arbitrator’s award, the First Department wrote:

Because of the great degree of deference afforded to arbitration awards, the available grounds for vacating them are extremely limited. Mere errors of law or fact reflected in an arbitration award are insufficient for a court to overturn it, since “the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice” …. A court may only disturb the award “when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator’s power” ….  Matter of McIver-Morgan, Inc, v Dal Piaz, 2013 NY Slip Op 03411, 1st Dept, 5-9-13

 

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