In finding that a 10-year warranty on windows and doors did not extend the relevant statute of limitations, the First Department wrote:
Although initially it may seem somewhat unfair for defendant to have given plaintiffs a 10-year warranty and then argue that plaintiffs cannot sue for breach of warranty at any time during that 10-year period, the case law is clear on when this cause of action accrues …. Katopodis v Marvin Windows & Doors, 2013 NY Slip Op 02817, 1st Dept, 4-25-13
The First Department affirmed the grant of class certification in a landlord-tenant action finding that plaintiff’s rent overcharge claim and attorney’s-fees claim did not seek “penalties” in violation of CPLR 901. There was a dissent. The First Department wrote:
Although plaintiff did not waive her right to reimbursement for alleged overcharges and interest, these claims did not render her action an action for a penalty for purposes of CPLR 901(b), even though such recovery is denominated a penalty by the RSL [Rent Stabilization Law], because they lack a punitive, deterrent and litigation-incentivizing purpose ….
Nor did the attorneys’ fees request seek a penalty, as the general right to attorneys’ fees in landlord-tenant proceedings (Real Property Law § 234) does not apply to administrative proceedings …, and the RSL provision should be understood as having the same nonpunitive purpose as the statute applicable to actions and summary proceedings. Notably, the reference in Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2526.1(d) to attorneys’ fees as an “additional penalty,” while otherwise not dispositive, is absent from the attorney fee provision in the legislatively enacted RSL. Gudz v Jemrock Realty Co, LLC, 2013 NY SlipOp 02814, 1st Dept, 4-25-13
The First Department reversed the dismissal of a putative class action by tenants against a landlord alleging the landlord deregulated the apartments while receiving tax incentive benefits from the city. Because the tenants waived the statutory treble damages provision, the First Department determined that the case no longer involved “penalties” and was therefore not precluded by CPLR 901. In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department wrote:
Pursuant to CPLR 901(b), “[u]nless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained in a class action.” However, even where a statute creates or imposes a penalty, the restriction of CPLR 901(b) is inapplicable where the class representative seeks to recover only actual damages and waives the penalty on behalf of the class, and individual class members are allowed to opt out of the class to pursue their punitive damages. … . * * * Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.13, which states that “[a]n agreement by the tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the RSL or this Code is void,” does not require a different result. “[P]laintiffs are seeking to waive their entitlement to treble damages unilaterally, not through agreement. Thus, allowing the class action to proceed would not frustrate the RSC’s purpose of [avoiding] situations whereby the landlord attempts to circumvent the [RSC’s] benefits” … . Downing v First Lenox Terrace Assoc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02853, 1st Dept, 4-25-13
The First Department upheld Supreme Court’s grant of class certification in an action alleging defendant landlord charged market rents while accepting J-51 [tax incentive] benefits. The First Department wrote:
The issues of when defendant received J-51 benefits, whether defendant deregulated apartments while receiving those benefits, which tenants resided in those apartments during those time periods, and whether defendant wrongfully charged market rents while accepting J-51 benefits are common issues that “predominate,” thereby meeting the commonality requirement of CPLR 902(a)(2)… . The need to conduct individualized damages inquiries does not obviate the utility of the class mechanism for this action, given the predominant common issues of liability … .
Defendant’s counterclaim for rent arrears does not cause plaintiff to be an atypical member of the class. Her claim is typical of the claims of all class members in that each flows from defendant’s alleged unlawful deregulation of apartments while receiving J-51 benefits … . “[T]hat the underlying facts of each individual plaintiff’s claim vary, or that [defendant’s] defenses vary, does not preclude class certification” …. Defendant’s counterclaim does not materially add to the complexity or difficulty of resolving plaintiff’s individual claim, and defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff might be inclined to settle her case to evade liability on the counterclaim is speculative. Bordern v 400 East 55th Street Associates, LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 02815, 1st Dept, 4-25-13
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta (with a dissent), the First Department held that payment, by the respondent investment fund, of an arbitral award in stocks as opposed to cash required a hearing to determine the value of the stocks. The First Department outlined its role where the satisfaction of an arbitral award which has been confirmed in a judgment is before them:
As a threshold matter, we begin by observing that a party may oppose an arbitral award either by motion pursuant to CPLR 7511(a) to vacate or modify the award within 90 days after delivery of the award or by objecting to the award in opposition to an application to confirm the award notwithstanding the expiration of the 90-day period … . Here, respondent did neither. Indeed, it was petitioner who appealed the lower court’s refusal to enforce the judgment. Under such circumstances, contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not have the authority to grant a non-appealing party relief that it did not seek by vacating a judgment entered against it …. Moreover, we are not empowered to remit the matter to the arbitrator for clarification ….
Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of an arbitration award that has been confirmed in a judgment, it becomes “the Court’s function to determine and declare the meaning and intent of the arbitrator []” …. To that end, a court may review the text of the arbitrator’s award in conjunction with whatever findings, if any, the arbitrator has made …. In so doing, a court should adopt the most reasonable meaning of the text by avoiding any potential interpretations of the award that would render any part of its language superfluous or lead to an absurd result .. . Furthermore, the award must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the prevailing party … . Matter of Pine St Assoc, LP v Southridge Partners, LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 02854, 1st Dept, 4-25-13
The First Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of summary judgment and held that the accident was unforeseeable as a matter of law. The plaintiff fell off a “setback roof” which was accessible only by climbing through the window of plaintiff’s friend’s apartment:
An accident is unforeseeable as a matter of law where the conduct or chain of events was so extraordinary that the defendant’s duty did not extend to preventing it … . Here, given the nature and location of the setback, it was unforeseeable that individuals would choose to access it, and thus defendant had no duty to guard against such an occurrence … . Powers v 32 E 31 LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02846, 1st Dept, 4-25-13
Plaintiff’s car was side-swiped by defendant’s van when the van was in a merging lane called a taper. The taper was 100 feet shorter than required. In affirming summary judgment to the defendants responsible for constructing the taper, the First Department determined the van was the sole proximate cause of the accident:
The Supreme Court properly found that the alleged negligence of the DOE van’s driver was a proximate cause of the accident. Here, as the van was stopped next to plaintiff’s vehicle, the length of the taper, created by defendants Tully and Verizon, was entirely unrelated to the occurrence of the accident. As noted, the accident was caused by the alleged improper operation of the DOE vehicle. There is no evidence that the van was unable to safely merge, instead of merely trying to get to the front of the line of traffic moving through the construction zone. A jury would thus be required to speculate that the taper was a proximate cause of the accident. As a result, even assuming the taper in this case did not comply with …standards, and that it may have furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence, it was not a proximate cause of it … . Collins v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02816, 1st Dept, 4-25-13
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
In finding defendant was not plaintiff’s (Vasquez’) “special employer” (and therefore could not take advantage of the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law), the First Department wrote:
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, made on the ground that the complaint is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § § 11, 29[6] …, was properly denied. Defendant maintains that it was Vasquez’s special employer because it hired all building employees, including Vasquez, and was also responsible for firing. However, plaintiff asserts the evidence establishes that defendant was not Vasquez’s special employer. Specifically, the property owner, not defendant, paid and provided benefits to Vasquez. Defendant’s evidence failed to establish as a matter of law that it “control[led] and direct[ed] the manner, details and ultimate result of” Vasquez’s work …, and plaintiff acknowledges questions of fact exist on this issue. If the issue of defendant’s status as a special employer is resolved in plaintiff’s favor, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on liability on her Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Vasquez v Cohen Bros Realty Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 02682, 1st Dept, 4-23-13
The First Department determined the respondent, Plaza Residences, could assert the Workers’ Compensation defense even though petitioner believed he was working for a nonparty (Wavecrest Management, Inc) which directed and controlled his work:
The Workers’ Compensation exclusivity provision applies to those employers, and their agents, that exercise supervision and control over an employee …. Here, the evidence establishes that an actual employment relationship exited between plaintiff and Plaza Residences. Such evidence includes Plaza Residences’ payroll records, state withholding tax and unemployment returns, plaintiff’s own W-2 form, and copies of cancelled paychecks. Each of these documents identified Plaza Residences as plaintiff’s employer, and the fact that Plaza Residences relinquished all authority to nonparty Wavecrest Management, Inc., which directed and controlled plaintiff’s work, did not preclude Plaza Residences from asserting the Workers’ Compensation defense.
The First Department also determined petitioner’s jumping from a stalled elevator was “an unforeseeable, superseding cause of his accident” and dismissal of his complaint was therefore warranted. Clifford v Plaza Hous Dev Fund Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02695, 9871, 305519/08, 1st Dept, 4-23-13
The First Department reversed a conviction because of the prosecutor’s improper cross-examination of the defendant. The defendant was accused of smuggling a knife to her boyfriend while he was incarcerated. The defendant was cross-examined about her boyfriend’s gang membership and criminal history and defendant’s periods of unemployment (among other improper topics). In addressing the cross-examination about defendant’s boyfriend’s criminal history, the First Department wrote:
The criminal history of defendant’s boyfriend was irrelevant to whether defendant “knowingly and unlawfully introduce[d] any dangerous contraband into a detention facility” … . The fact that Wright was a gang member with an extensive criminal history has no bearing on whether or not defendant knew she was introducing dangerous contraband into the facility, and could only serve to inflame the jury and prejudice defendant. As defendant correctly argues, this evidence served “no purpose but to suggest that defendant was associated with a disreputable person” … .People v Bartholomew, 2013 NY Slip Op 02699, 1st Dept, 4-23-13
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy