You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM A LEDGE OUTSIDE HIS HOTEL ROOM; HOTEL STAFF DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY OF CARE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; A DELAY AFTER A FAMILY MEMBER’S REQUEST THAT HOTEL STAFF CALL THE POLICE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERT OPINION TO HAVE CAUSED THE SUICIDE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the defendant hotel did not assume a duty of care for a hotel guest who committed suicide and did not proximately cause plaintiff-decedent’s suicide. Hotel staff had been made aware of decedent’s family’s fear that decedent, who was in a room at the hotel, was suicidal. Hotel staff checked on the decedent, who indicated he was “fine.” Subsequently a family member, who had been communicating with decedent, asked hotel staff to call the police. The crux of the lawsuit is the allegation that a delay in calling the police caused decedent to commit suicide. After breaking into decedent’s locked room, the police found decedent on a ledge outside the window and unsuccessfully tried to talk him back into the room:

An entity in control of a premises, “whether [it] be a landowner or a leaseholder, is not an insurer of the visitor’s safety” … . Absent a duty of care, there is no breach and no liability, regardless of how careless the conduct … . * * *

Plaintiffs … contend that defendants breached an assumed duty of care when they agreed to check on the decedent after being informed of his suicidal ideations and failed to act carefully or reasonably in contacting the police.

While “one who assumes a duty to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully” … , a defendant can only be held “liable for a breach of an assumed duty where the plaintiff shows reliance on the defendant’s course of conduct, such that the defendant’s conduct placed him or her in a more vulnerable position than he or she would otherwise have been in had the defendant done nothing” … . * * *

… [T]he record on appeal clearly shows … that despite defendants’ delay in calling the police, a period of at least thirty minutes elapsed from the time the police entered the hotel and decedent jumped from the ledge in the police officer’s presence. Beadell v Eros Mgt. Reality, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02496, First De[t 5-7-24

Practice Point: A landowner or leaseholder in control of a hotel is not an insurer of a hotel guest’s safety and does not owe a duty of care to hotel guests absent the assumption of a duty to act (not the case here where a hotel guest committed suicide).

Practice Point: The expert opinion evidence here fell short of demonstrating that hotel staff’s delay in calling the police at the request of decedent’s family was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide.

 

, , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging the New York City public school system discriminates against Black and Latinx students and seeking injunctive relief was justiciable and stated valid causes of action. Therefore the complaint, which had been dismissed, is now reinstated. The opinion is comprehensive and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs allege that State and City policies create a “racialized” admission pipeline. According to plaintiffs, the pipeline begins with a single standardized test for the City’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) programs taken by children as young as four-years-old. The G&T test, plaintiffs assert, disproportionately benefits “privileged” white students and their “in-the-know” parents, who have the “navigational capital” to understand the admissions process and the economic capital to pay for expensive test preparation. The G&T programs, plaintiffs allege, provide superior academic preparation, which allows primarily white and Asian students to continue through the pipeline to academically screened middle and high schools, relegating Black and Latinx students to unscreened schools, often in poorly maintained buildings with limited extracurricular programs. The end of the pipeline, or “zenith” as plaintiffs describe it, is admission to one of eight New York City specialized high schools based on the results of the Special High School Admissions Test (the SHSAT).* * *

The pipeline, plaintiffs claim, is designed to exclude Black and Latinx students from the City’s prime educational opportunities. According to plaintiffs, the State and the City “intentionally adopted” and “for decades have intentionally retained—with no pedagogical basis—testing-based sorting that they know excludes students of color from equal educational opportunities.” This knowledge was acquired, plaintiffs allege, “through decades of experience and reflected in [defendants] own admissions” including the knowledge of the public school system’s “racist character and outcomes.” Despite this knowledge, plaintiffs allege that the State and the City “intentionally refuse to dismantle . . . its racialized channeling system.” IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02369, First Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s conclusion that the suit seeking injunctive relief from discriminatory education policies and procedures in the New York City public school system was not “justiciable” was rejected.

 

,

AFTER PLAINTIFF’S POST-NOTE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE NONPARTY WITNESS WAS QUASHED, PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT FROM THE NONPARTY WITNESS; OBTAINING THE STATEMENT WAS A PROPER METHOD OF “INFORMAL DISCOVERY” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff properly conducted “informal discovery” by obtaining a voluntary statement from a nonparty witness after plaintiff’s post-note deposition subpoena for the witness was quashed:

Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to quash the untimely, post-note deposition subpoena plaintiff served on nonparty witness Harris-Aikens, and to preclude plaintiff from “examining or otherwise taking any sworn testimony from” Harris-Aikens (the December Order), and suspended disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3103(b). …

… [T]he Harris-Aikens witness statement did not constitute “disclosure of the particular matter in dispute” prohibited by CPLR 3103(b). The statement was not an examination or other sworn testimony explicitly prohibited by the December Order, and was not otherwise an enumerated “disclosure device” under CPLR 3102(a) … . Rather, obtaining the witness statement was plaintiff’s proper exercise of ex parte, informal discovery, which the Court of Appeals has long recognized as a permissible and invaluable avenue by which litigants prepare for trial … . Everett v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02276, First Dept 4-30-24

Practice Point: Obtaining a voluntary statement from a nonparty witness here did not violate the court order quashing a deposition subpoena for the same witness. The voluntary statement was a proper form of “informal discovery.”

 

,

THERE WAS NO RECORD DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED OF THE JURY NOTE AND NO RECORD THE JUDGE RESPONDED TO THE NOTE, A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTE REFERRED ONLY TO ONE COUNT, THE THREE COUNTS WERE FACTUALLY CONNECTED REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the absence of a record indicating defense counsel was notified of a note from the jury, or even that the judge responded to the note, was a mode of proceedings error. The People’s argument that the note addressed only one count of the indictment and the convictions on the other counts should survive was rejected. The nature of the jury’s question was relevant to all counts:

The fourth note stated: “We the jury request to hear the judge’s reading of count 1, including definitions and detail. Further, can you please confirm if it is up to our determination to decide if something is considered as “course of conduct” and “act”? As written on the verdict sheet, count 1 states “engaging in a course off conduct,” we want to confirm if this is a typo or not.” * * *

When an O’Rama error occurs, the question of whether the error in the proceedings related to some charges requires reversal on the other charges is determined on a case-by-case basis, with ‘due regard’ for the facts of the case, the nature of the error, and the ‘potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome’ … .

Here, the three counts of the indictment were alleged to arise from a course or repetition of conduct in violation of the order of protection reasonably perceived as threatening to the victim’s safety (count 1), through means both electronic/written (count 2) and telephonic (count 3). Thus, given the underlying factual relationship between the crimes, defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Jamison, 2024 NY Slip Op 02286, First Dept 4-30-24

Practice Point: If the record is silent about whether counsel was notified of a jury note and whether the judge even responded to the note, that is a mode of proceedings error.

Practice Point: Although the jury note related to only one of the three counts, the convictions on the other two counts could not survive because all the counts were factually connected.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant carpet and flooring subcontractor’s (S&’s) request to inspect the area of the building where plaintiff stepped into a vent hole from which a cover had been dislodged should not have been denied. Although the vent cover had been replaced, it could not be said for certain that an inspection would be fruitless:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court of Appeals has directed that the phrase “material and necessary” in this statute should be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . Under this standard, S&F is entitled to inspect the site of the incident giving rise to plaintiff’s allegedly serious injuries.

While the replacement of the … cover might reduce the likelihood that a site inspection will produce evidence useful to S&S’s defense, it does not make it certain that an inspection will be useless. … It is for S&F, not its adversary, to determine whether the inspection of the site of the accident is sufficiently likely to produce relevant information to be worth S&F’s time and effort. … . …

… [A] court’s power to limit otherwise proper use of a disclosure device should be exercised only for the purpose of avoiding “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.”

We fail to see how an inspection of the site of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit would impose on plaintiff, or on anyone else, any of the burdens enumerated by CPLR 3103(a) to an “unreasonable” extent. Balsamello v Structure Tone, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02251, First Dept 4-25-24

Practice Point: An inspection by defendant of the area where plaintiff was injured should be allowed absent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY WARRANTING CIVIL MANAGEMENT, THE JUDGE CONFLATED TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS, ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE PROVEN BY A CONSTELLATION OF CONDITIONS, DISEASES AND DISORDERS, AND IMPROPERLY RELIED ON OUTSIDE RESEARCH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined several errors by the judge in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding tainted the judge’s finding that the state had not proven respondent sex offender suffered from a mental abnormality and required civil management:

This article 10 proceeding arose out of respondent Richard V.’s 2002 conviction of rape in the first degree. In October 2001, respondent and an accomplice posed as plumbers to gain entry to the apartment of a female acquaintance. After the woman brought them inside, respondent subdued her with pepper spray, restrained her, repeatedly attacked her, threatened to kill her, and twice violently raped her.* * *

The sole issue at the bench trial was whether respondent suffers from a mental abnormality that “predisposes [him] to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense” resulting in “having serious difficulty [] controlling such conduct” … . At the second stage of an article 10 proceeding — the dispositional phase — the standard is whether a respondent has “such an inability to control his behavior that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” …

There can be little dispute that Supreme Court conflated the applicable legal standards. * * *

… Supreme Court committed reversible error in finding that the State could not use a “constellation” of conditions, diseases, and disorders to establish that respondent has a mental abnormality. * * *

Supreme Court’s extensive usage of outside research blurred the lines between the roles of judge and counsel, depriving the parties of the opportunity to respond … . Matter of State of New York v Richard V., 2024 NY Slip Op 02158, First Dept 4-23-24

Practice Point: When a judge does outside research to inform the decision, the parties are deprived of the opportunity to respond.

 

, ,

RE: IN VITRO FERTILIZATION: RETRIEVING AND FERTILIZING THE EGGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE MEDICAL-MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; STORING AND MAINTAINING THE FROZEN EGGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS ARE UNTIMELY; THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS ARE TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, determined plaintiffs’ causes of action alleging defendants did not properly freeze, store and maintain embryos for future implantation sounded in negligence, not medical malpractice, and were therefore timely:

The underlying parts of the IVF [in vitro fertilization] process implicate both medical malpractice and ordinary negligence. Retrieving the eggs from the ovaries, fertilizing the egg with a donated sperm, grading the quality of the embryos, and preparing them for cryopreservation are clear acts of medical science or art requiring a specialized skillset appropriately characterized as medical in nature. However, all of these acts concluded on August 11, 2008, when the embryos were cryopreserved, rendering the causes of action based on such treatment untimely (see CPLR 214-a). Further, because those processes firmly ended on that date, the continuous treatment doctrine does not toll the statute of limitations … . As plaintiffs’ causes of action for medical malpractice based upon these allegations are untimely, we need not address their merits.

On the other hand, once cryopreservation has commenced, the mere maintenance of the storage tanks containing the frozen embryos does not comprise acts of “medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons” … . Where an act is more “‘administrative’ than medical in nature,” conduct is “measured by ordinary negligence standards” … . While the cryopreservation storage tanks … were checked at least twice weekly for leaks and the levels of liquid nitrogen, such acts are more administrative than medical in nature. Thus, once the embryos entered cryopreservation, [defendants] merely owed a duty to plaintiffs to maintain the successful operability of the storage tanks.

The alleged failure in “fulfilling [this] different duty” “sounds in negligence,” rather than medical malpractice … . Bledsoe v Center for Human Reproduction, 2024 NY Slip Op 02088, First Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: The opinion in this “in vitro fertilization” case clearly demonstrates the distinction between medical malpractice and ordinary negligence. The retrieving, fertilizing and grading of the embryos involve specialized medical skills and implicate the medical-malpractice criteria. The storage and maintenance of the frozen embryos, on the other hand, implicate ordinary negligence criteria. Here the medical malpractice causes of action were untimely. But the ordinary negligence causes of action were timely.

 

, ,

A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH A TORT ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract action and the fraudulent conveyance action should not have been consolidated:

In 2016, plaintiff commenced a breach of contract action against defendant eCommission Solutions, LLC (eCommission). In 2022, plaintiff commenced a fraudulent conveyance action against eCommission and its president, Paul Hoffman, and his wife, alleging that Hoffman transferred millions from eCommission to himself with the intent to defraud creditors like plaintiff.

… When one action sounds in contract and the other in tort, it is inappropriate to grant consolidation … . Indeed, the breach of contract and fraudulent conveyance actions present different questions of law and fact … . Moreover, the fraudulent conveyance action will be moot if plaintiffs fail to win the breach of contract action … . Finally, the two actions are at different stages, so that consolidation would lead to delay in trying the breach of contract action … .

Discovery in the fraudulent conveyance action should be stayed until the breach of contract action is resolved … . 3B Assoc. LLC v Ecommission Solutions, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02086, First Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: A breach of contract action should not be consolidated with a tort action (here an action for fraudulent conveyance).

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNGUARDED STAIRWAY OPENING AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PRE-DEPOSITION SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and the pre-deposition summary judgment motion was not premature. While transporting large wooden panels past a stairway, plaintiff fell through an unguarded stairway opening:

The court should have granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because he was not provided with adequate protection to prevent his fall into the unguarded stairway opening … . …

… Labor Law § 240(1) is not dependent on a finding that the owner or general contractor had notice of the violation … …. [D]efendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Defendants’ assertion that plaintiff removed the plywood barrier is speculative … .

The fact that no depositions have been taken does not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, as defendants failed to show that discovery might lead to facts that would support their opposition to the motion … . Defendants also failed to show that facts essential to their opposition were within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge … .  Blacio v Related Constr. LLC,2024 NY Slip Op 02008, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: A plaintiff’s pre-deposition summary judgment motion will not be dismissed as premature unless defendant demonstrates discovery might lead to relevant facts or relevant facts are within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge.

 

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