You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff after trial was reversed by the First Department because: (1) plaintiff’s son, a notice witness who testified about the alleged defective condition at the core of the lawsuit, had not been identified before trial; (2) a missing witness charge re: a purported employee of the defendant was given in the absence of proof of the employee’s existence; and (3), the testimony of defense witnesses was erroneously precluded or limited.  Collazo v Riverbay Co-op, 2013 NY Slip Op 01904, First Dept. 3-21-13

 

Presumption Disability Related to World Trade Center Work Not Rebutted

In reversing the dismissal of an Article 78 proceeding which sought to annul the denial of petitioner’s application for World Trade Center (WTC) disability benefits, the First Department determined the “World Trace Center presumption” had not been rebutted by the respondents:

Once a petitioner establishes that he worked the requisite number of hours at the site, the “World Trade Center presumption” places the burden on the respondents to show that the petitioner’s qualifying injury was not incurred in the line of duty … . If a determination is made, even postretirement, that the applicant is disabled by a qualifying WTC condition, it will be presumed, unless rebutted, that the disability was sustained due to a work-related accident, thus entitling the applicant to RSSL [Retirement and Social Security Law] § 605(h) disability retirement benefits.

Although the WTC presumption does not mandate enhanced [accident disability retirement] benefits for first responders in all cases, it is nonetheless incumbent on respondents to come forward initially with affirmative credible evidence to disprove that the officer’s disability was causally related to his work at the WTC site … . The Board may not deny benefits solely by relying on the lack of evidence connecting the disability to the exposure, or by “rely[ing] on petitioner’s deficiencies to fill its own gap in proof” … .  Matter of Samadjopoulos v New York City Employee’s Retirement Sys., 2013 NY Slip Op 01901, 400912/10, 9493, 1st Dept. 3-21-13

 

,

Prior Ruling on Appeal is Law of the Case for Both Trial and Appellate Courts

In a case which resulted in a second appeal, defendant contested the validity of a board meeting in both the first and second appeal.  The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, explained that the ruling in the first appeal was binding both on the trial court and the appellate court as the “law of the case: “

An appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court . . . [and] operates to foreclose re-examination of the question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law”… .  Board of Mgrs. … v Seligson, 2013 NY Slip Op 01926, 1st Dept. 3-21-13

 

, ,

Wife’s Derivative Claim Added to Complaint After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

The First Department held that a wife’s derivative claim in a medical malpractice action brought by her husband could be added to the complaint after the statute of limitations had expired (disagreeing with the 2nd and 3rd Departments):

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to amend. The original complaint placed Kings Harbor on notice of the underlying transaction (see CPLR 203 [f] …. We are in accord with the 3rd Department’s view that “[i]n the absence of any prejudice and under these circumstances, Supreme Court should be permitted to exercise that same discretion which would allow the addition of a plaintiff’s derivative cause of action” … . We disagree with the cases holding that a spouse’s derivative claim cannot be added to a complaint through the relation back provision of CPLR 203 (f) (see e.g. Dowdall v General Motors Corp., 34 AD3d 1221, 1222 [4th Dept 2006]; Lucido v Vitolo, 251 AD2d 383, 384 [2d Dept 1998]).  Giambrone v Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr., 2013 NY Slip Op 01898, 9235N 307139/09, 1st Dept. 3-21-13

 

,

Alternative Holding in Prior Appeal Did Not Have Preclusive Effect

In a case involving a contract of sale for a painting (for 2 million euros), the First Department noted that a prior decision of that same court which stated the standing issue was not preserved for appellate review, and that if the issue were to be considered it would be rejected, was not binding for res judicata/collateral estoppel purposes:

[Defendant] was not barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel from arguing the issue of standing in his motion to vacate the July 8, 2009 order. In particular, this Court’s holding on the prior appeal in this case (79 AD3d 534) cannot be considered binding for collateral estoppel purposes because this Court’s initial holding as to the issue of standing was that it had not been preserved for review. It was only as an alternate holding that this Court stated that the standing argument, if it were to be considered, would be rejected … .  Van Damme v Gelber, 2013 NY Slip Op 01782, 601995/07, 590203/08, 9553B, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

 

,

Elements of Defamation, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained

Plaintiff, an English professor, brought suit for defamation and invasion of privacy based upon two articles in the defendant New York Post and on the websites of two other defendants.  In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants, the First Department applied the facts of the case to the proof requirements for defamation (finding the statements were not false or were expressions of opinion), “invasion of privacy” pursuant to the NY Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51 (involving the use of plaintiff’s image), prima facie tort and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The decision briefly but clearly articulates the essential elements of these causes of action and the reasons the elements were not demonstrated.  Fleischer v NYP Holdings, Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 01784, 150164/10, 9557, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

, ,

Flaws in Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Allegations in Complaint Explained

The First Department, in affirming the dismissal of fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims in a contract action, described the flaws in the complaint as follows:

The court properly dismissed the fraud claim for failure to plead fraud with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) and for failure to plead loss causation … .

The court properly dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim for failure to plead a special relationship. An arm’s length business relationship, as existed here, is not generally considered to be the sort of confidential or fiduciary relationship that would support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation … . Nor did [defendants] “possess unique or specialized expertise” … .  Greentech Reasearch LLC v Wissman, 2013 NY Slip Op 01787, 9561, 602477/09, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

,

Deliberate Avoidance of Service of Process 

The First Department determined the defendants, who deliberately attempted to avoid notice of the summons and complaint, did not raise an issue of fact in the face of the affidavits of the process server:

Relief under CPLR 317 is not warranted where, as here, defendants’ failure to obtain proper notice was the result of a deliberate attempt to avoid such notice … . The individual defendant averred that neither he nor the corporate defendant received actual service of the summons and complaint, or of the supplemental summons and amended complaint, or of any of the notices served by plaintiff following commencement of the action. However, this conclusory denial of receipt is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to proper service in the face of plaintiff’s submission of affidavits from a process server, which constitute prima facie evidence of proper service … .  Pina v Jobar, USA, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 01794, 9570N, 300756/08, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

, ,

Sanctions for Discovery Noncompliance and Spoliation

The First Department concluded preclusion and an adverse inference charge were appropriate discovery sanctions for defendant’s failure to produce documents and the apparent destruction of evidence:

Having been conditionally ordered to produce all correspondence …, and the transcripts of the audio tapes of meetings …, in order to successfully oppose plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions, defendant had to demonstrate (1) a reasonable excuse for the failure to produce the requested items and (2) the existence of a meritorious claim or defense in order to relieve itself from the dictates of that order … . Defendant did not satisfy these requirements. Defendant’s history of noncompliance with the court’s prior discovery orders supports the motion court’s finding that defendant’s actions were willful and contumacious …. The court providently granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order precluding defendant from offering any evidentiary proof with respect to the transcription of committee meetings and/or correspondence … and defendant in defense and/or opposition to plaintiffs’ prosecution of their bad faith claim at trial … .

Plaintiffs also made a prima facie showing that defendant had either intentionally or negligently disposed of the transcript of the … meeting and that the spoliation of this critical evidence compromised its ability to prosecute their bad faith action against defendant … . The motion court did not abuse its discretion in finding that certain evidence may have existed, but was not produced by defendant either because it was destroyed or withheld. Although plaintiffs moved to strike the answer, the court imposed the reasonable lesser sanction of an adverse inference charge, which will prevent defendant from using the absence of these documents at trial to its tactical advantage … .  General Motors Acceptance Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 01774, 109668/06, 9272, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

, ,

Acknowledgment of Debt in Bankruptcy Proceeding Restarted Statute of Limitations 

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, determined the defendant’s acknowledgment of a debt in his bankruptcy petition restarted the 20 statute of limitations for the enforcement of a judgment:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, enforcement of the judgment issued against him is not barred by CPLR 211(b). While [plaintiff] first sought to enforce the judgment in 2011, more than 20 years after the judgment could have first been enforced, defendant acknowledged the judgment in 2005 within his bankruptcy petition, thereby recommencing the statute of limitations from that date. Based on the 2005 acknowledgment, the statute of limitations to enforce the judgment ran anew in 2005 and [plaintiff] has until 2025 to enforce the judgment … . Since a debtor sufficiently acknowledges a debt pursuant to a judgment simply by admitting to the creditor in writing that a debt is owed, here, defendant’s listing of the judgment within his bankruptcy petition constitutes such an admission and is thus, an acknowledgment under the statute. Moreover, insofar as an acknowledgment need not specify the amount nor the character of the debt owed …, defendant’s failure to list the correct amount of the judgment or the court in which it was obtained does not constitute a shortcoming which avails defendant. First NY Bank for Bus. v Alexander, 2013 NY Slip Op 01796, 4800/90, 9377, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

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