You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

Failure to Get Court’s Permission to Represent to a Grand Jury Required Dismissal of Indictment​

The First Department determined that the prosecutor’s failure to get court permission to represent a case to a grand jury need not be preserved by objection and required dismissal of the indictment:

The failure to obtain court authorization to re-present the charges to a second grand jury implicates the power to prosecute…; thus, defendant was not required to alert the court to the authorization requirement of CPL 190.75(3), or otherwise object, in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. Where, as here, the prosecutor presented charges and the grand jury failed to vote to either dismiss them or indict the defendant, a situation arose “in which the court, and not the prosecutor, should have decided whether re-presentation to a second grand jury was appropriate”…. In the absence of court authorization, dismissal of the indictment is required …. People v Miller, 2013 NY Slip Op 03928, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

Contract Provision Protected Contractee from Damages for Delay Caused by Regulators​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, the First Department determined, among many other contract-issues, that delays allegedly caused by regulators (re: asbestos-removal) were included in the contract provision which insulated the contractee from delay-related damages:

“A clause which exculpates a contractee from liability to a contractor [Bovis] for damages resulting from delays in the performance of the latter’s work is valid and enforceable and is not contrary to public policy if the clause and the contract of which it is a part satisfy the requirements for the validity of contracts generally”…. However, such a clause may be disregarded under certain recognized exceptions, including one for delays that are “uncontemplated” …. Delays are not considered uncontemplated when they “are reasonably foreseeable, arise from the contractor’s work during performance, or . . . are mentioned in the contract” …. Further, a party seeking to invoke any of the exceptions to the general rule that no damages for delay clauses are enforceable bears a heavy burden … .

Here, Bovis failed to carry its heavy burden. The contract specifically anticipated the possibility that the involvement of regulators would delay the process. Again, Bovis expressly acknowledged that it assumed the “risk of all regulatory and other Governmental Authority delays.” Certainly this lifted the no damages for delay clause out of the exception for uncontemplated delays. There is no basis for Bovis to argue that by alleging that the extent of the regulatory delays was extreme and unprecedented it stated a claim for delay damages. As this Court has stated in finding a no damages for delay clause enforceable, “[W]hile the conditions themselves may not have been anticipated, the possibility, however unlikely, of their arising was contemplated and addressed by the parties in their agreement” … .  Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc v Lower Manhattan Dev Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03804, 1st Dept, 5-28-13

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

,

Retainer Agreement in Divorce Action Which Addressed Only Work “Up To” Trial Did Not Allow Recovery of Attorney’s Fees for Trial​

The First Department determined that a retainer agreement for work “up to” a trial in a divorce action precluded the law firm from recovering any fees for the trial.  To cover those fees a second retainer agreement was required:

The plain language of the retainer states that the law office’s representation of Blisko includes work leading “up to” a trial, “but not including an actual trial.” Indeed, the law office acknowledges that the retainer did not include representation at trial. Following the commencement of the trial on August 18, 2009, the retainer between the law office and Blisko terminated and plaintiff was representing Blisko without a written retainer …. Law Off of Sheldon Eisenberger v Blisko, 2013 NY Slip Op 03802, 1st Dept,. 5-28-13

 

, , ,

Attorney-Client Communications Not Discoverable in Legal Malpractice Action​

The First Department ruled defendants were not entitled to attorney-client communications as discovery in an action alleging negligent representation in a probate and accounting proceeding:

 The court properly denied the motion to compel because there is no merit to defendants’ argument that the filing of this malpractice action placed the subject matter of the privileged communications “at issue.” The invasion of the privilege is not required to determine the validity of plaintiffs’ malpractice claim, and the application of the privilege does not deprive defendants of information vital to their defense…. Nor was there a partial, selective disclosure of privileged communications such that the privilege was waived ….  Corrieri v Schwartz & Fang, PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03797, 1st Dept, 5-28-13

 

,

Hearsay Evidence Can Be Considered in Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion As Long As It Is Not the Only Evidence​

In affirming the denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion where plaintiffs’ complaint alleged defendant coerced decedent into executing estate planning documents, the First Department noted that hearsay evidence may be considered as long as it is not the only evidence offered:

While defendant correctly asserts that plaintiffs submitted certain hearsay evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion, including certain physician and attorney notes, such hearsay evidence may be considered when submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, so long as it is not the only proof submitted …. Here, nonhearsay evidence, including affidavits from the decedent’s friends as well as the decedent’s first daughter, described the contentious nature of the marriage and the decedent’s declining mental health. Moreover, the decedent, who was 83 years old and undisputedly suffered from some degree of cognitive impairment when he signed the documents, initiated this lawsuit during his lifetime and attested, by his verified complaint, to his declining health and defendant’s abusive and coercive conduct.  Plaintiffs further rely on a nonhearsay affidavit from a forensic document examiner that concluded that the decedent’s signature was forged on the retainer letter, possibly by defendant, as additional evidence that defendant coerced the decedent into retaining counsel to execute these documents and did not want the decedent to have separate counsel in the event of any conflict. All of this raises triable issues of fact whether defendant wielded sufficient influence over the decedent to overcome his free will …. Bishop v Maurer, 2013 NY Slip Op 03771, 1st Dept, 5-28-13

 

,

Doctrine of Continuous Representation/Retainer Agreement in Estate Proceeding “Unconscionable”​

In a case involving “gifts” and a 40% contingency fee for three defendant attorneys’ work on an estate worth several tens of millions, the First Department applied the “doctrine of continuous representation” to toll the statute of limitations and found the fee arrangement(s) “unconscionable:”

The claims relating to the gifts the widow made to the three individual defendants are not time-barred. Rather, they were tolled under the doctrine of continuous representation …. Contrary to the individual defendants’ contention, the doctrine applies where, as here, the claims involve self-dealing at the expense of a client in connection with a particular subject matter….  * * *

The revised retainer agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable…. The evidence shows that the widow believed that under the contingency arrangement, she would receive the “lion’s share” of any recovery. In fact, as it operated, the law firm obtained over 50% of the widow’s share of proceeds. Thus, the law firm failed to show that the widow fully knew and understood the terms of the retainer agreement–an agreement she entered into in an effort to reduce her legal fees … .

In considering the substantive unconscionability of the revised retainer agreement, the Referee correctly considered such factors as the proportionality of the fee to the value of the professional services rendered… , and the risks and rewards to the attorney upon entering into the contingency agreement … .

The amount the law firm seeks ($44 million) is also disproportionate to the value of the services rendered (approximately $1.7 million) … .Matter of Lawrence, 2013 NY Slip Op 03759, 1st Dept, 5-22-13

 

,

Expert Evidence About a “Date Rape” Drug Not Implicated in the Trial Did Not Require Reversal; Jury Deemed to Have Considered Only Evidence Supported by the Record​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department upheld the conviction for rape and for facilitating a sex offense with a controlled substance.  The controlled substance referenced in the indictment and the subject of proof at trial was ecstasy.  However, expert evidence of the effects of another drug, GBH, was allowed in at trial. The First Department determined the unsupported testimony about GBH did not require reversal because it could be assumed the jury relied upon the allegations supported by the evidence:

…[T]he reference in the experts’ testimony to GHB and its symptoms, and the People’s reference to that evidence in support of their summation, did not impermissibly present the jury with a new, legally inadequate theory…. Rather, at worst, the suggestion that the complainant may have also been drugged with GHB was merely a “factually unsupported theory” …. “[W]here jurors are given a choice between a factually supported and factually unsupported theory, it is assumed they have chosen the one with factual support” …. Here, we can assume that in determining whether the complainant was “rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling [her] conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to [her] without [her] consent,” the jurors relied on those of the People’s assertions that were supported by the evidence. People v Blackwood, 2013 NY Slip Op 03764, 2nd Dept, 5-23-13

 

,

Defense Counsel Deemed Ineffective/Failed to Examine Evidence

The First Department determined defense counsel was ineffective (requiring a new trial) because he emphasized the difference between the Ziploc bags (containing drugs) the defendant was alleged to have sold to an undercover officer and the bags which were in defendant’s possession upon his arrest without ever comparing them.  When the jury asked to see the bags which were in defendant’s possession, defense counsel was forced to acknowledge that they matched those purchased by the undercover officer:

In focusing on the Ziploc bags, counsel eviscerated his entire strategy. No longer could the jury believe that no physical evidence tied defendant to the charges; to the contrary, counsel pointed them in the direction of strong physical evidence. Further, the jury could not be expected to acquit defendant on the theory that the People’s case lacked credibility when his own counsel demonstrated a lack of believability on a critical issue at trial. In addition, defendant’s own credibility was directly undermined by counsel’s failure to conduct due diligence, since he testified about a discrepancy between the drugs purchased by the undercover and those recovered from him by the police. There was no sound strategy underlying counsel’s decision to focus the jury on the evidence bags. By his own admission, it was a mistake, and he would not have highlighted the Ziploc bags had he known their actual contents. This self-sabotage of counsel’s defense strategy, albeit inadvertent, was inherently unreasonable and prejudiced defendant’s right to a fair trial under New York law… .  People v Barnes, 2013 NY Slip Op 03757, 1st Dept, 5-23-13

 

Fall from Unfolded Step Ladder Stated Claim​

In determining plaintiff’s use of a step ladder that was not unfolded did not warrant dismissal of the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action for a fall from the ladder, the First Department wrote:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against defendants …by his testimony that: (1) the ladder was the only one available; (2) the ladder could not be properly opened into an A-frame stance due to excess debris in his narrowly confined work space; (3) he asked his foreman for another ladder, to no avail; (4) the ladder was unusual in that the step treads contained spikes which unexpectedly caught hold of his shoe as he was descending the improperly leaning ladder; (5) he was caused to fall backwards, from a height of approximately six feet; and (6) his right shoulder was injured when it struck the wooden work-zone barrier as he fell.  Keenan v Simon Prop Group, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03622, 1st Dept, 5-22-13

 

,

New York City Administrative Code Imposing a $2000 Fine for Removal Recyclable Material from Curb Violated Excessive-Fines Clauses​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which imposed a $2000 fine for the removal of recyclable material from the curb violated the Eighth Amendment as applied.  The code provision was designed to prevent large scale removal of recyclable material which deprived the City of recycling income. The petitioner was an artist who used recyclable material in his work.  He picked up a television antenna which had been put out on the curb.  He was pulled over by the NYC sanitation police, given a summons mandating a $2000 fine, and his vehicle was seized.  The First Department wrote:

It is undisputed that petitioner violated the relevant Administrative Code provision—he removed and transported a recyclable object using a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, under the specific circumstances here, we conclude that the mandatory $2,000 penalty amounts to an unconstitutionally excessive fine. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids the imposition of “excessive fines.” The New York State Constitution contains the same prohibition (art I, § 5). The Excessive Fines Clause ” limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense””… . A fine is unconstitutionally excessive if it “notably exceeds in amount that which is reasonable, usual, proper or just” …. Thus, the Excessive Fines Clause is violated where the fine is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense”… . Matter of Prince v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03623, 1st Dept, 5-21-1

 

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