You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING COLLAPSED FOR NO APPARENT REASON; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; IN ANY EVENT THE EXPERT’S OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO LOCK THE SCAFFOLD SPOKE TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who was on a scaffold when it collapsed, was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Defendants’ expert’s affidavit was conclusory and did not raise a question of fact. The noted that plaintiff’s comparative negligence (the alleged failure to lock all the pins in place) was not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

The evidence that the scaffold on which plaintiff was working at the time of his accident collapsed under him for no apparent reason established his prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Their expert’s opinion that the cause of plaintiff’s accident was his alleged failure to properly lock all of the scaffold’s pins in place was conclusory, and unsupported by anyone “with personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s work at the time of the accident” … . “Furthermore, even if it could be established that plaintiff did not lock all the pins in place before ascending the scaffold, this would have amounted to only comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim” … . Bialucha v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 06470, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: A scaffold which collapses for no apparent reason supports summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

Practice Point: The conclusory affidavit by defendants’ expert did not raise a question of fact.

Practice Point: Contributory negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

, ,

NONE OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO THE DEFENDANT FIRE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE IT BELOW, BECAUSE IT CONCERNED A QUESTION OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant fire safety and security contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. It was alleged the steps where plaintiff fell were in disrepair and were not sufficiently illuminated, which had nothing to do with defendant-contractor’s duties. Therefore the contractor did not “launch and instrument of harm,” plaintiff could not have relied upon the contractor to make the area safe, and the contractor’s contract with the owner did not displace the owner’s safety-related responsibilities:

Unity, the building’s fire safety and security contractor, should have been granted summary judgment. Even assuming that Unity’s contractual fire safety inspection duties extended to the identification of premises defects such as the broken step involved in plaintiff’s mishap, any failure by Unity to identify that defect would not have constituted the affirmative launching of a force or instrument of harm within the meaning of Espinal … . The same is true of any failure by Unity to call attention to insufficient lighting of the stairway. Further, Unity’s contract did not completely displace the duty of the owner or managing agent to maintain the safety of the premises … . Nor is there any evidence that plaintiff detrimentally relied on Unity to perform its contractual duties. Accordingly, on this record, none of the Espinal conditions for holding a premises contractor liable for an injury to a third party are satisfied with respect to Unity. Diamond v TF Cornerstone Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06473, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: Here none of the Espinal exceptions applied such that the contractor could be held liable for the slip and fall.

Practice Point: Although the “Espinal” issue was not raised below, it could be raised on appeal because it presented a question of law.

 

,

BECAUSE THE NONPARTY WITNESS, WHO WAS PLAINTIFF’S ASSAILANT, HAD A COMMON NAME AND WAS HOMELESS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WITNESS’S DATE OF BIRTH AS AN AID IN LOCATING HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE WITNESS’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to the birth date of a nonparty witness who was plaintiff’s assailant’s in the underlying event. Because the witness was homeless and had a common name, the witness’s date of birth would help in locating him. Plaintiff was not entitled to the witness’s social security number, however:

Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s request that defendants provide the date of birth of the nonparty witness. “[O]rdinarily the names and addresses of witnesses are a proper subject of disclosure” … . The identity of an active participant in an incident is discoverable because “‘the witness was so closely related to the [incident] that his testimony [became] essential in establishing [its] happening'” … .

Plaintiff seeks disclosure of the date of birth and social security number of the nonparty witness, who was also plaintiff’s assailant in the incident underlying the litigation. Defendants have already disclosed that plaintiff’s assailant, who has a remarkably common name, was homeless. Accordingly, the ordinary disclosure of “names and addresses” is unlikely to assist plaintiff in locating the witness. Disclosure of his date of birth may assist plaintiff in identifying and locating the witness. Defendants are not required to provide the witness’s social security number, however, as courts have recognized a heightened level of confidentiality with respect to an individual’s social security number. Lane v City of New York. 2023 NY Slip Op 06480, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was entitled to discovery of a witness’s date of birth as an aid to locating him because the witness was homeless and had a very common name. However plaintiff was not entitled to the witness’s social security number which is protected by a higher level of confidentiality.

 

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER INJURY FROM A WOODEN CONCRETE FORM FALLING OVER WERE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised questions of fact about whether injury caused by a 50-poind wooden concrete form falling over was covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6):

… [P]laintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the form, whether the weight of the form could generate a significant amount of force as it fell and whether plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by the lack of a safety device of the kind required by the statute … . …

Plaintiff also raised triable issues as to his Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.2(d), inasmuch as that section provides that stripped concrete forms “shall be promptly stockpiled or removed from areas in which persons are required to work or pass.” The evidence indicated … that the concrete forms were scattered about the garage area following concrete work performed in the garage two weeks earlier by plaintiff’s employer, the cement contractor. Lopez v 106 LPA LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06481, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: Here a wooden form weighing 50 pounds, which was leaning against a wall, fell over on plaintiff. There were questions of fact whether this gravity-related event was covered by Labor Law 240(1), and whether violation of the Industrial Code provision requiring the stacking of concrete forms was covered by Labor Law 241(6).

 

,

HERE THE LEVEL-THREE STOP AND FRISK FOR A SUSPECTED FIREARM WAS VALID; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, explained the criteria for a level-three stop and frisk for a suspected firearm:

In assessing the propriety of a level-three stop and frisk of a defendant for a suspected firearm the court must consider three factors: First, whether there was proof of a describable object or of describable conduct that provides a reasonable basis for the police offer’s belief that the defendant had a gun in his possession … .

A stop and frisk for a firearm is justifiable in cases where the officer identifies the outline of a pistol in the defendant’s pocket … . Here, the officer described in detail the distinct pistol shape of the bulge in defendant’s jeans pocket, including the orientation of the barrel and pistol grip, that he observed over the course of approximately a minute. Pursuant to the first Prochilo factor, these observations constituted proof of a “describable object” that “provide[d] a reasonable basis for the police officer’s belief that the defendant had a gun in his possession,” justifying the officer’s immediate frisk of defendant’s pocket (Prochilo, 41 NY2d at 761).

The second Prochilo factor is whether the manner of the officer’s approach to the defendant and the seizure of the gun was reasonable under the circumstances (41 NY2d at 761). Following the observation of a gun-shaped bulge in a defendant’s pocket, an officer is generally justified in conducting a minimally invasive pat-down of the bulge to confirm that it is indeed a firearm … . Here, after observing the pistol-shaped bulge in defendant’s right rear jeans pocket, the officer conducted a pat-down of the bulge and confirmed that it was a gun. … Upon confirming that the object was a firearm, the officer had probable cause to effectuate an arrest and reasonably tackled defendant to the ground. People v Bowman, 2023 NY Slip Op 06494, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: This decision explains the criteria for a valid level-three stop and frisk for a suspected firearm.

 

, ,

THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined (1) the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applies retroactively; and (2) because the defendant mortgage company is estopped by CPLR 213(4)(b) from asserting the six-year statute of limitations for foreclosure had not expired, plaintiff’s RPAPL 1501(4) complaint (seeking cancellation and discharge of the mortgage) should not have been dismissed:

Having concluded that FAPA applies retroactively, we must next consider whether defendant is estopped under CPLR 213(4)(b) from asserting that the statute [*6]of limitations for the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action has not expired because the debt secured by the mortgage was not validly accelerated in connection with the prior foreclosure action. CPLR 213(4)(b)’s potent estoppel bar will not be imposed, and a defendant will be free to assert that the debt secured by the mortgage was not validly accelerated in connection with a prior action, if, and only if, the prior action was dismissed based on an express judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.

Here, defendant is estopped from asserting that the statute of limitations on a cause of action to foreclose on the mortgage has not expired. An action to foreclose on the mortgage was previously commenced and dismissed. Defendant is not saved by the limited exception afforded by CPLR 213(4)(b) because Supreme Court, in dismissing the foreclosure action, did not make an express determination that the debt secured by the mortgage was not validly accelerated. Rather, the court dismissed the foreclosure action on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants therein … . Genovese v Nationstar Mtge. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06477, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applies retroactively. Here the defendant mortgage company was estopped by CPLR 214(4)(b) from asserting the six-year statute of limitations for a foreclosure action had not expired.

 

,

THE CONTEMPT AND GAG ORDERS ISSUED IN THIS TRIAL WHERE FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE DEFENDANT ARE NOT APPROPRIATELY CHALLENGED BY A DEMAND FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW; MOTIONS TO VACATE THE ORDERS SHOULD BE MADE; ANY DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS COULD THEN BE APPEALED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined demand for a writ of prohibition (CPLR 7803(2)) and an article 78 review (CPLR 7801(2)) of Contempt Orders and Gag Orders issued by the judge in this trial (where former President Donald Trump is the defendant) were not the proper procedural vehicles. The proper procedure would be to move the vacate the orders and then appeal the denial of the motion:

In determining whether to exercise the court’s discretion and grant a writ of prohibition, several factors are to be considered, including “the gravity of the harm which would be caused by an excess of power” and “whether the excess of power can be adequately corrected on appeal or by other ordinary proceedings at law or in equity” … . Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff … . Further, while the Gag Order and Contempt Orders were not issued pursuant to formal motion practice, they are reviewable through the ordinary appellate process (see CPLR 5701[a][3] …). For these reasons, a writ of prohibition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the Gag Order and Contempt Orders.

As to the first cause of action, CPLR 7801(2) clarifies that article 78 review is not permitted in a civil or criminal action where it can be reviewed by other means, “unless it is an order summarily punishing a contempt committed in the presence of the court” (CPLR 7801[2]). The Contempt Orders here were not issued “summarily,” nor was the contempt “committed in the presence of the court.” To the extent there may have been appealable issues with respect to any of the procedures the court implemented in imposing the financial sanctions, the proper method of review would be to move to vacate the Contempt Orders, and then to take an appeal from the denial of those motions. Matter of Trump v Engoron, 2023 NY Slip Op 06461, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: The contempt and gag orders issued in this trial of former president Donald Trump cannot be challenged by a demand for a writ of prohibition or an Article 78 review. The proper procedure is to move to vacate the orders and appeal any denial.

 

, ,

THE DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION REFORM ACT (DLSRA), WHICH ELIMINATED LICENSE SUSPENSIONS FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE, DOES NOT VACATE UNLICENSED-OPERATION CONVICTIONS BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO PAY A FINE AND DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THE APPEAL WAIVER HERE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT SUGGESTED DEFENDANT COULD NOT FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming defendant’s unlicensed operation of a vehicle conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined the Driver’s License Suspension Reform Act (DLSRA) did not vacate defendant’s conviction. The DLSRA eliminated the failure to pay a fine as a basis for suspension of a driver’s license and does not apply retroactively. Defendants’ waiver of appeal was deemed invalid because the written waiver indicated a notice of appeal could not be filed:

… [T]he written waiver of appeal contained language … suggesting that the defendant was barred from even filing a notice of appeal … . The People contend that because they did not enforce the language stating that defendant’s appeal would be deemed a motion to vacate, the oral colloquy at the sentencing hearing cures the defect in the written waiver or otherwise renders defendant’s waiver valid. This contention is without merit … . …

The DLSRA amended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510(4-a) to remove the failure to pay a fine as a basis for the suspension of a driver’s license … . The Legislative intent was to lift suspensions of licenses and lessen the financial burdens on the defendants by structuring an affordable installment payment plan … .

Nothing in the statutory language, which is the “clearest indicator of legislative intent” suggests that there was any intent to authorize the vacatur of convictions under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 that arose from license suspensions predicated on failures to pay a fine … . People v Castro, 2023 NY Slip Op 06452, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: The Driver’s License Suspension Reform Act (DLSRA) does not vacate unlicensed-operation convictions stemming from a failure to pay a fine and does not apply retroactively.

Practice Point: A written waiver of appeal which indicates a notice of appeal cannot be filed is invalid.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s assault first conviction to assault second, determined the evidence of serious disfigurement was legally insufficient. The issue was not preserved (no motion for a trial order of dismissal on the issue?) but was considered on appeal in the interest of justice:

The People failed to demonstrate that the victim, who sustained a two-to-three-centimeter laceration on her forehead, which required three stitches and resulted in a small scar, suffered a serious disfigurement … . Accordingly, the convictions on those counts must be vacated. However, because the evidence sufficed to prove that the victim suffered a physical injury (Penal Law § 10.00[9]), we reduce the second-degree assault conviction to third-degree assault (Penal Law § 120.00[1]). People v Murray, 2023 NY Slip Op 06454, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: If there is a “legally insufficient evidence” issue, raise it on appeal even if the issue was not preserved by a motion for a trial order of dismissal. The issue may be addressed in the interest of justice.

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that the condition (an irregularly-shaped landing) is open and obvious does not speak to proximate cause but may be relevant to plaintiff’s comparative negligence (which will not defeat a summary judgment motion).. Here there was evidence the landing and the lack of a handrail violated the NYC Building Code. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Plaintiff … raised a material issue of fact as to whether the irregular shape and dimensions of the landing and the lack of a handrail were the causes of his fall through, inter alia, his testimony that the “shortness” and “angle” of the landing caused his ankle to roll and through his expert engineer’s unrebutted affidavit that the “irregular shape” and “shortness” of the landing, which was in violation of the City of New York Building Code, and the lack of a handrail, proximately caused the fall.

The lower court’s assessment that the landing’s purported dangerous defects were open and obvious has no bearing upon the central, threshold issue of whether there was a causal connection between the defects and the plaintiff’s injury … . Further, it is axiomatic that the open and obvious nature of a hazard pertains to an owner’s duty to warn of such danger but does “not eliminate a claim that the presence of the hazardous condition constituted a violation of the property owner’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . Perry v Sada Three, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06456, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, the “open and obvious” character of the condition has no bearing to the issue whether the defects caused plaintiff’s injury.

 

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