You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Criteria for Valid Waiver of Appeal Explained

In finding the defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal because the colloquy was inadequate, in spite of the defendant’s signing a written waiver, the First Department wrote:

We note that litigation over the validity of appeal waivers, which arises regularly from many courts, can best be avoided if trial judges separately llocate defendants on the waiver of the right to appeal … . We again remind the courts that the better practice is to secure a written waiver, along with a thorough colloquy to ensure the defendant’s understanding of its contents … . It would be best if the court made clear that this is a separate and important right being waived, and that by signing the waiver, the plea and sentence are final, and the defendant agrees to accept the sentence imposed. The court cannot rely solely on defense counsel to explain the significance of the written waiver. People v Oquendo, 2013 NY Slip Op 02320, 9617, 1090/09, 1st Dept 4-4-13

 

Absence of “Altering” and Readily Observable Risk Precluded Suit

The First Department determined plaintiff’s fall from a metal roof did not meet the criteria for a Labor Law 240(1) because attaching a temorary sign was not “altering” for purposes of the statute.  In addition the First Department determined the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence actions should be dismissed because the risks inherent in walking on a pitched metal roof were readily observable.  Bodtman v Living Manor Love, Inc, et al, 9703, 113921/08, 1st Dept 4-2-13

 

Response to Flooding Caused by Storm Not “Routine Maintenance”

The First Department determined that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of the defendant in a Labor Law 240 (1) action.  Plaintiff was called to address flooding caused by severe weather and fell into an open manhole.  The motion court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance.  The First Department found that a manhole is a “structure” within the meaning of the statute and that there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff was engaged in “repair” or “routine maintenance:”

Whether a particular activity constitutes a “repair” or routine maintenance must be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the context of the work … . A factor to be taken into consideration is whether the work in question was occasioned by an isolated event as opposed to a recurring condition. * * * The record here demonstrates that the work performed by plaintiff at the time of his injury was far from routine.  Dos Santos v Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02140, 8914, 105861/08, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

Relation-Back” and “Savings Clause” Statutes Explained

The First Department discussed the difference between the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203(f) and the savings clause of CPLR 205(a):

In a prior appeal in this action, we held that plaintiffs could not utilize the relation-back provisions in CPLR 203(f) to cure their defective initial complaint, based on their failure to comply with the subject agreements’ condition precedent to commencing an action against Impact, since the doctrine is dependent upon the existence of a valid preexisting action .. . However, on this appeal, we find that the savings clause of CPLR 205(a) does not bar plaintiffs’ action, since the statute was “created to serve in those cases in which the prior action was defective and so had to be dismissed” … . The dismissal of the prior action for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a condition precedent was not a judgment on the merits …, and plaintiff commenced a new action within the six-month period required by CPLR 205(a).  Southern Wine & Spirits of Am, Inc v Impact Envtl Eng’g, PLLC, 2013 NY Slip Op o2i46, 9651, 650083/10, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

, ,

Judicial Hearing Officer Does Not Have Power to Find Non-Witness Guilty of Contempt

The First Department noted that a judicial hearing officer (JHO) does not have the power to find any person in contempt except a witness before him:

While CPLR 4311 and 4317(a) give a referee, upon consent of the parties, the power to hear and determine all trial issues before the court, CPLR 4301 specifically precludes a referee and, thus, a JHO from “adjudg[ing] any person except a witness before him guilty of contempt.” While [the JHO] had the power to make factual findings concerning violation of his orders, he was without power to adjudge persons in contempt because neither contempt finding involved behavior occurring before him … .  Hoffman v Helm Capital Group, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02141, 603109/08, 9537A, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Child Care Agency Could Be Found Negligent for Failure to Remove Child from Foster Parents’ Home

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint against a child care agency which places children in foster homes.  A child the defendant placed allegedly started a fire in which members of the foster family were either killed or severely injured.  The First Department held that the child care agency, although it did not have a duty to control the child when he was in the foster family’s physical custody, had a duty to remove the child from the foster home upon notice of his propensity for setting fires:

In general, a defendant will not be liable for the conduct of third persons who cause harm to others … . However, the duty to control a third person’s conduct may arise when the defendant has authority to do so, and because of either the relationship between the defendant and the third person or the relation between the defendant and the plaintiff … . An example is the parent-child relationship … .

Thus, a child care agency, acting in loco parentis, has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foster children under its supervision and control from harming others … .  Wynn, as Administratrix … v Little Flower Children’s Services, 2013 NY Slip Op 02156, 15276/95, 9200, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

, ,

“Professional” Standard of Care Can Be Required Based Solely on Nature of Services Provided

The First Department noted that a “professional” standard of care could be required of a party solely by virtue of the nature of services rendered:

The court properly found that Impact had a professional duty independent of the parties’ agreements. Although Impact, an environmental consultant, was not subject to licensing requirements, public policy requires that it should be held to a “professional” standard of care, given the nature of its services … . Indeed, “[p]rofessionals . . . may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of their contractual duties” … .  Southern Wine & Spirits of Am, Inc v Impact Envtl Eng’g, PLLC, 2013 NY Slip Op o2i46, 9651, 650083/10, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim

he First Department determined a worker was entitled to partial summary judgment on a 240(1) claim based on a falling pipe striking him in the head.  The fact that the worker was not wearing a hard hat did not raise a triable issue of fact on the 240(1) claim:

The evidence demonstrates that plaintiff, a welder who was working at a power plant that was being constructed, was struck on the head by a pipe that fell from a height of approximately 85 to 120 feet as a result of a gap in a toeboard installed along a grated walkway near the top of a generator in the power plant … . It is undisputed that there was no netting to prevent objects from falling on workers and contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff is not required to show exactly how the pipe fell, since, under any of the proffered theories, the lack of protective devices was the proximate cause of his injuries …. Nor is plaintiff required to show that the pipe was being hoisted or secured when it fell, since that is not a precondition to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact since they failed to show that adequate protective devices required by Labor Law § 240(1) were employed at the site. That plaintiff was wearing a welding hood but not a hard hat does not raise an issue of fact since “[a] hard hat is not the type of safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to be constructed, placed and operated, so as to give proper protection from extraordinary elevation-related risks to a construction worker” … . Mercado v Caithness Long Is LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02005, 9634, 102473/09, 590277/11, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

, ,

City Deemed Immune from Suit—Governmental and Proprietary Functions Explained 

Plaintiff was injured when a Department of Transportation (DOT) worker, who was setting up cones on the roadway in preparation for road repair, allowed plaintiff to ride through the work area on her bicycle.  The plaintiff was injured when she rode over a pothole. The First Department determined the defendant City was immune from suit because the DOT worker was performing a discretionary/governmental, not a proprietary function, when he allowed the plaintiff to ride through.  The decision includes detailed discussion of discretionary/governmental versus proprietary functions.  Wittorf v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02014, 8358, 103233/06, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

Open and Obvious Nature of Condition Required Dismissal of Complaint

In reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the First Department determined the open and obvious nature of the danger precluded the lawsuit:

Dismissal of the complaint as against the City is warranted inthis action where the 14-year-old decedent drowned after she and friends scaled a fence, ignored signs prohibiting swimming, and entered into the Bronx River, which runs through River Park, even though she did not know how to swim. Although the City has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, in view of all the circumstances …, “the duty to take reasonable precautions does not extend to open and obvious conditions that are natural geographic phenomena which can readily be observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses” … .  Torres v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02019, 9607, 303086/11, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

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