You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN AN “ALTERING” ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 AND THE ACCIDENT–AN OBJECT FALLING DOWN A MANHOLE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF–WAS ELEVATION-RELATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was engaged in work covered by Labor Law 240 and the accident–an object falling down a manhole and striking plaintiff–was elevation-related:

Plaintiff established that he was engaged in an “altering” activity as enumerated by Labor Law § 240(1). … [P]laintiff’s work involved more than “feeding cable through a preexisting hole.” Rather, it was part of a much larger, multi-worker project to install a fiber optic network through a 20-manhole structure where none had previously existed, with the ultimate goal of installing the cables into the school buildings, which would necessarily require drilling holes into the foundation of the school buildings in order to reach the communications room … . …

… [T]he vacuum that fell from ground level into the manhole and struck plaintiff on the head posed the type of elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Keilitz v Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05661, First Dept 11-9-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was installing a fiber optic network and was struck by an object which fell down the manhole he was in. He was engaged in “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law 240. The accident was elevation-related within the meaning of Labor Law 240. He was entitled to summary judgment.

 

,

THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD DIED BEFORE SHE AND PETITIONER WERE TO BE MARRIED; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER ARGUED PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY AND FAMILY COURT AGREED; HOWEVER STANDING CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY EXTRAORDINAY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined standing in a custody matter can be proven by extraordinary circumstances and sent the matter back for a ruling. The child’s mother died unexpectedly before she and petitioner were to be married. The petition was denied for lack of standing. However, standing can be proven by extraordinary circumstance which may be demonstrated here:

As a prerequisite to seeking custody or visitation with a child, a party must establish standing. The party may establish standing (1) as a parent pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70; (2) as a sibling for visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 71; (3) as a grandparent for visitation or custody pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72; or (4) by showing extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (40 NY2d 543 [1976]) … . * * *

Family Court erred in dismissing petitioner’s custody and visitation petitions without permitting petitioner the opportunity to present evidence supporting her argument that she had standing based on extraordinary circumstances. Indeed, the Referee stated on the record during the hearing that she agreed with the biological father’s position that petitioner could only present extraordinary circumstances evidence after she established that she had standing. This is an error of law, as extraordinary circumstances is one of several bases for standing to seek custody and visitation.

Extraordinary circumstances may be found where there has been “a judicial finding of surrender, abandonment, unfitness, persistent neglect, unfortunate or involuntary extended disruption of custody, or other equivalent but rare extraordinary circumstance which would drastically affect the welfare of the child” … . Matter of Lashawn K. v Administration for Children’s Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 05662, First Dept 11-9-23

Practice Point: Standing to bring a custody petition may be demonstrated by extraordinary circumstances. Here the biological mother died unexpectedly before she and petitioner were to be married. The biological father successfully argued petitioner did not have standing. The matter was sent back for Family Court for a ruling on whether petitioner demonstrated standing based upon extraordinary circumstances.

 

, ,

AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the adverse inference jury charge was inappropriate because it requires, rather than permits, the jury to draw an adverse inference from the spoliation of evidence. The appeal was from the judge’s ruling on plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference charge. The judge was directed to fashion a new adverse inference charge:

Upon its determination that defendants’ spoliation of evidence amounted to gross negligence, the court directed that the jury be instructed that “had the evidence been preserved the evidence would have been against defendants’ position that [defendant] Marom and/or his workers did not cut down branches or trees or inserted rotting garbage in the barriers on [plaintiff’s] property.” This adverse inference charge is inappropriate because it “requires, rather than permits, the jury to draw an adverse inference” … . In any event, because the conflicting testimony in the record raises questions concerning the existence of the purportedly spoliated evidence, the issues of whether any spoliation had occurred and whether any adverse inference is warranted should be presented to the jury in the first instance … . Children’s Magical Garden, Inc. v Marom, 2023 NY Slip Op 05464, First Dept 10-31-23

Practice Point: With respect to spoliation of evidence, an adverse inference charge should permit, rather than require, the jury to find spoliation.

Practice Point: It appears that this appeal was brought before trial to address the erroneous adverse inference charge fashioned by the judge. The appeal successfully required the revision of the erroneous charge before the jury heard it.

 

, , ,

THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILLED OUT BY APPLICANTS FOR CITY JUDICIAL POSITIONS WERE PROTECTED FROM THE FOIL REQUEST BY THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined judicial questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption. The First Department noted that it did not have the authority in an article 78 proceeding to consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice:

… [T]he City properly applied the personal privacy exemption (Public Officer’s Law § 89[2][a]) to deny petitioner’s FOIL request in its entirety, as the City sustained its burden of establishing that disclosure of the records sought in this case — “all Uniform Judicial Questionnaires for applicants . . . under review by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary” as of October 21, 2020 — would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b] …). Disclosure of the questionnaire, which states the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in upper-case letters and boldface near the top of its first page, would undermine the assurances of confidentiality provided to candidates for judicial office … .

Moreover, disclosure would create a chilling effect, thus potentially diminishing the candor of applicants and causing others to decide against applying for judicial positions. The questionnaire contains extensive questions touching on highly personal and sensitive matters, such as personal relationships, reasons for leaving jobs, reasons for periods of unemployment, substance abuse, arrests, criminal convictions, testifying as a witness in criminal cases, and reasons for anticipated difficulty in handling the stresses involved in being a judge, as well as a catch-all question at the end of the questionnaire asking for any other information, specifically including unfavorable information, that could bear on the evaluation of the judicial candidate. In addition to the particular contents of the questionnaires, disclosure of the very fact that certain candidates submitted the questionnaires could harm those persons’ reputations by revealing that they sought to leave their jobs, or were unsuccessful in their applications for judicial positions … . Matter of Fisher v City of N.Y. Off. of the Mayor, 2023 NY Slip Op 05468, First Dept 10-31-23

Practice Point: Here the questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption.

Practice Point: In an article 78 proceeding an appellate court cannot consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice.

 

, , ,

​EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO PECUNIARY DAMAGES, WILL NOT SUPPORT AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined emotional and psychological damages, as opposed to pecuniary damages, will not support an action for breach of fiduciary duty:

… [P]laintiffs proffered no evidence showing that Atesa [plaintiff] sustained pecuniary damages, and adduced proof identifying only emotional and psychological injuries. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the allegations in the complaint that Atesa incurred financial expenses as a result of having to seek medical treatment and retain new counsel due to defendants’ alleged misconduct are insufficient to defeat summary judgment, absent any supporting evidentiary proof (see CPLR 3212[b] …). Plaintiffs’ contention that they could present such proof at trial is unavailing … . Because plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether recoverable damages were incurred, summary judgment dismissing the claim should have been granted … . Pacelli v Peter L. Cedeno & Assoc., PC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05448, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Emotional and psychological damages, as opposed to pecuniary damages, will not support an action for breach of fiduciary duty.

 

,

DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined both statements by the defendant, the first in the morning to detectives, the second in the afternoon to the district attorney, should have been suppressed. The first statement was suppressed by Supreme Court because the police told the defendant that any statement he made would not necessary be used against him and could help him if confessed. The second statement, although also preceded by the Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed because nothing was done to correct the misinformation from the police which preceded the first statement:

… Statement #2, along with the knife and DNA evidence recovered from the knife, should have been suppressed as there was not a sufficient break in the interrogation to dissipate the taint from the initial Miranda violation. This is not a case where defendant initially received improper warnings prior to giving Statement #1 and then later received proper warnings prior to giving Statement #2. Instead, defendant received complete and proper Miranda warnings prior to giving Statement #1, but they were undermined by the additional commentary and misleading statements made by the police officers … thereby violating defendant’s Miranda rights and requiring the suppression of Statement #1. Moreover, after the officers made the misleading statements, nothing was specifically done to correct any resulting misunderstanding to ensure that the defendant understood the import and effect of the Miranda warnings and that his statements could, and would, be used against him. This misunderstanding cannot be assumed to have simply dissipated after the Assistant District Attorney gave defendant the second Miranda warnings, even though the second warnings took place hours later and in a different room. As the second Miranda warnings did not dissipate the taint, they did not effectively protect defendant’s rights. Although it “is not the business of the police or the courts” to “provid[e] a general legal education” … , those institutions also cannot be allowed to proliferate misleading information in situations where a suspect is entitled to be advised of his rights. People v Savage, 2023 NY Slip Op 05452, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Although both the initial tainted statement to the police and the subsequent statement to the DA were preceded by Miranda warnings, because nothing was done to correct the misinformation provided by the police prior to the first statement, the second statement, made the same day, and the knife and DNA located based on the second statement, should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WHICH HAD RELINQUISHED CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A FLOOR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SLIPPERY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN WAXED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Trinity demonstrated it was an out-of-possession landlord and the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was under the control of the lessee (LSSNY), plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff alleged the floor was slippery because it had been waxed:

Defendant established prima facie that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual obligation to maintain the demised premises. Defendant also established prima facie, that the accident was not caused by a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory safety provision … . * * *

… [P]laintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant possessed and controlled the leased premises for purposes of liability. Plaintiff’s averment that she saw defendant’s personnel freely using the location during the three years she worked at the premises was insufficient to demonstrate that there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant relinquished complete control over the area before she fell … . Rodriguez v Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 2023 NY Slip Op 05453, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlord was not liable for plaintiff’s fall on a slippery floor. The alleged defect was not structural and did not violate a statutory duty.

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE; POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF WILL NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this Dram Shop Act did not present enough evidence to warrant summary judgment, noting that pointing to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof never sufficient:

Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim based on violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11—101; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65[2]). “[A] defendant when moving for summary judgment cannot merely point to gaps in the plaintiffs’ evidence, but must affirmatively demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment” … .

Although defendant’s manager testified about employee training and practices generally, his testimony regarding the incident at issue—including, inter alia, that he did not know whether any patrons were intoxicated on the date of the alleged incident, that he was not aware of anyone being asked to leave the establishment due to intoxication during the month of the incident, and that defendant did not keep records of intoxicated individuals—failed to carry defendant’s initial burden. Defendant’s further “reli[ance] on plaintiffs’ inability to prove that the assailants were served alcohol or were intoxicated” was similarly insufficient to carry its prima facie burden … . Bauseman v Pamdh Enters. Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05355, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Defendant’s pointing to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof is not be enough to support summary judgment.

 

, , ,

THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE PLAINTIFF, THERFORE, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a nonsignatory, the plaintiff Rosh, Inc., could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel:

The court should have denied the motion to compel arbitration of Rosh’s claims because Rosh is a nonsignatory to the agreement that contains the arbitration clause and defendants failed to show that the direct benefits theory of estoppel applies …  Under that theory, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where it “knowingly exploits the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … .

Here, the arbitration clause was contained in a partnership agreement. However, Rosh was not a party to that agreement nor a partner in the partnership. Rather, Rosh was a ten percent owner in a limited liability company that was the general partner of the partnership. This did not constitute a direct benefit to Rosh from the partnership agreement … .

Moreover, before Rosh could be compelled to arbitrate, it had to invoke or attempt to enforce the terms of the partnership agreement … . To the contrary, all of Rosh’s claims were asserted under the operating agreement of the limited liability company or based on its status as a member of that company. Gilat v Sutton, 2023 NY Slip Op 05363, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was a nonsignatory to the agreement with the arbitration clause. Because plaintiff did not directly benefit from or exploit the agreement, plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF PASSENGER SUED THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK A CAR FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE DRIVER FAILED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff passenger was not entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. The defendant, Rodriguez, was driving the car in which plaintiff was a passenger when it stuck another car driven by Espada. Plaintiff did not demonstrate that Rodriguez did not maintain a safe distance from the Espada car. Therefore plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case that Rodriguez was liable for a rear-end collision:

Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the accident was a rear-end collision resulting from Rodriguez’s failure to maintain a safe distance behind Espada’s vehicle, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) … . Rather, plaintiff testified that Rodriguez’s vehicle came in contact with Espada’s vehicle as Rodriguez was turning into an intersection, and plaintiff did not see the Espada vehicle prior to the accident and did not know if it was moving or stopped at the moment of impact. Absent a showing that Rodriguez negligently struck Espada’s vehicle due to a failure to maintain a safe distance, plaintiff, even as an innocent passenger, was not entitled to summary judgment … . McDowell v Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05368, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment in a rear-end collision case, the plaintiff must demonstrate the driver did not maintain a safe distance from the car in front.

 

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