You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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.

 

, , ,

THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM’S DENIAL OF COURT EMPLOYEES’ APPLICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE AFFIRMED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department affirmed the NYS Unified Court System’s (UCS’s) denial applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate. The issue was analyzed under both the US and NYS Constitutions. The USC held the petitioners (USC employees) failed to meet the qualifications for employment by not complying with the mandate. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but is well worth reading for the constitutional analyses:

Conducting the appropriate level of review, we find that the vaccine mandate was rationally related to the legitimate goals of slowing the spread of COVID-19 and fully reopening courts to “promote efficient access to justice” … . Indeed, “[w]hatever their merits or efficacy, it cannot be said that the State’s policies are an irrational means to achieve the legitimate goal of curbing the spread of COVID-19” … . Matter of Ferrelli v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02012, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: The NYS Unified Court System’s denial of employees’ applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate did not violate the US or NYS Constitutions.

 

,

COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WAS NOT FRIVILOUS OR DESIGNED TO DELAY; COUNSEL WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE SANCTIONED; THE JUDGE DID NOT INDICATE WHY THE AMOUNT OF THE SANCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, $100 SANCTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arguments made by counsel (appellant) were not “frivolous,” counsel’s conduct was not designed to delay, harass or maliciously injure another, the judge did not give counsel an opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions, and the judge did not indicate why the amount of the sanction was appropriate:

Appellant properly raised procedural and substantive arguments concerning why the court should not direct petitioner to compel respondent, a 62-year-old woman with end stage renal failure, to undergo painful dialysis three times a week for three hours a day and receive powerful psychotropic medication against her wishes in order to restrain her. …

Although the court warned the parties not to interrupt each other or the court, and admonished appellant a couple of times during the hearing about such conduct, the record does not reflect a pattern of such behavior on her part or demonstrate that it caused delay. Further, the court did not cite any false statements made by appellant sufficient to warrant sanctions.

The court also failed to give appellant a reasonable opportunity to he heard on the sanction before it was actually imposed …, and did not indicate why the amount imposed was appropriate … . Matter of Kings County Hosp. v M.R., 2024 NY Slip Op 02016, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: Conduct by counsel in this case was not frivolous; it was not designed to delay and did not involve false statements; sanctions were not warranted.

Practice Point: Before a judge sanctions an attorney, the attorney should be given the opportunity to be heard.

Practice Point: A judge sanctioning an attorney should indicate why the amount of the sanction is appropriate.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay wages and retaliation pursuant to Labor Law sections 193, 198 and  215 should not have been dismissed:

The court incorrectly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law claims on the ground that the dispute was governed solely by the parties’ contract. Contrary to defendants’ contention, Labor Law claims for unpaid wages can be asserted alongside claims for breach of an employment contract … . …

The complaint … adequately states a claim for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” under the No Wage Theft Loophole Act … . Plaintiff alleges that his employment contract entitled him to an annual salary of $425,000 per year, which would increase in six months to $450,000 per year unless his performance was deemed “unsatisfactory,” and a cash bonus incentive … .” These “earnings . . . for labor or services rendered” constituted “wages” within the meaning of Labor Law 190(1) … . …

The complaint also states a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s notice of resignation subject to cure constituted protected activity, as plaintiff “made a complaint” to defendants that they had “engaged in conduct that [plaintiff], reasonably and in good faith, believe[d]” constituted unlawful withholding of his earned wages, specifically his nondiscretionary annual bonus (Labor Law § 215[1][a]). Plaintiff’s characterization of the bonus as “formulaic and a nondiscretionary wage” evidences his belief that he had a legal entitlement to the bonus and that defendants’ withholding of it was unlawful … . Neu v Amelia US LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02019, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was not paid the salary and bonuses called for in his employment contract. The complaint stated causes of action for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” and “retaliation” under the Labor Law.

 

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