You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT CITE A VIOLATION OF ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, WHICH WOULD ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A CODE VIOLATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the bill of particulars to allege a violation of an Industrial Code provision describing the construction of platforms. Plaintiff was walking on a rebar mat when he fell. The rebar mat could be considered to be a “platform” which, under the Industrial Code, requires planking:

Regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, defendants “made a prima facie showing of entitlement to [summary] judgment” because “plaintiff did not cite any Industrial Code provision that allegedly was violated here in his complaint [or] bill of particulars” … . “However, this failure is not necessarily fatal to a section 241(6) claim and, in the absence of unfair surprise or prejudice, may be rectified by amendment, even where a note of issue has been filed” … . Plaintiff, in seeking to amend the bill of particulars, asserted a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(1), which requires that “[a]ny platform used as a working area or used for the unloading of wheelbarrows, power buggies, hand carts or hand trucks” to “be provided with a floor of planking at least two inches thick full size, exterior grade plywood at least three-quarters inch thick or metal of equivalent strength.” “[T]he platforms contemplated by that section are those used to transport vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic” … . Since it is uncontroverted that plaintiff was traversing the rebar mat carrying more rebar, and workers were expected to walk over the rebar mat, there is at least an issue of fact as to whether the rebar mat qualified as a platform used to transport pedestrian traffic. Plaintiff’s “belated identification of th[is] section[] entails no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and results in no prejudice to the defendant[s]” … . Thus, plaintiff is granted leave to amend his bill of particulars on this point, and summary judgment dismissing the § 241(6) claim is denied. Marte v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00231, First Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: Here in this Labor Law 240(1) action, plaintiff was allowed to amend his bill of particulars to cite a violation of the Industrial Code. Where there is no prejudice this type of amendment can be allowed even after the note of issue is filed.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT CANNOT APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING; HE MUST FIRST BE ADJUDICATED BY THE SORA COURT AND MAY SUBSEQUENTLY APPEAL REQUESTING AN ANNULMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in full-fledged opinion by Judge Pitt-Burke, determined the defendant could not appeal an interlocutory order which denied his motion to dismiss the SORA proceeding. Defendant had been convicted of a federal offense and argued the Penal Law did not criminalize the use of morphed images which did not depict actual sexual conduct by a child. The First Department held the defendant must go through with the SORA hearing and subsequently make this argument on appeal:

By its plain language, Correction Law § 168-n (3) only permits an appeal “as of right” from the SORA court’s risk level determination order. To find otherwise would be to ignore the legislative intent of the statutory language … . Namely, the procedural safeguards afforded to defendant in Correction Law § 168-n (3) require the SORA court to conduct a risk assessment hearing before it renders an order requiring him to register as a sex offender in New York and assigns him a risk level designation. Until a hearing is held and a determination made, the defendant’s liberty interest as related to the SORA proceeding has not yet been adjudicated (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). …

Under to CPLR 5701 (a) (2) (v), “[a]n appeal may be taken to the appellate division as of right . . . from an order . . . where the motion it decided was made upon notice and it . . . affects a substantial right.” Even assuming defendant’s interpretation of Correction Law § 168-n (3) is correct, the interlocutory order appealed from does not require defendant to register as a sex offender. In fact, the very procedural safeguards noted above prevent the SORA court from issuing such an order without a hearing. People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 00248, First Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: Defendant could not appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the SORA risk-level proceeding before it was conducted. Defendant contended the federal offense of which he was convicted involved morphed images that did not depict actual sexual conduct by a child, a circumstance, he argued, not covered by the New York Penal Law.

 

,

THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS THE “SOLE REMEDY” FOR BREACH; HOWEVER NOTHING IN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE WAIVED THE NONBREACHING PARTY’S RIGHT TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PURSUANT TO CPLR 5001(A) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract language, which provided that liquidated damages constituted the “sole remedy” for breach, did not waive the nonbreaching party’s  right to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a):

At issue in this appeal is whether the parties’ contract language specifying that purchaser’s “sole remedy” in the event of sellers’ breach is the return of its downpayment constitutes a clear waiver of CPLR 5001 (a) as defined by the Court of Appeals in J. D’ Addario & Co., Inc. v Embassy Indus., Inc. (20 NY3d 113 [2012]) and requires denying the nonbreaching party statutory prejudgment interest. … [W]e conclude that it does not and hold that CPLR 5001 (a) requires that plaintiff …, the nonbreaching purchaser, be awarded prejudgment interest on its $626,250.00 downpayment, at the statutory rate of 9% … . IHG Harlem I LLC v 406 Manhattan LLC,2024 NY Slip Op 00164, First Dept 1-16-24

Practice Point: The contract provided that liquidated damages constituted the “sole remedy” for breach. However, nothing in the contract language indicated the nonbreaching party’s right to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) was waived.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CABLE WHICH WHIPLASHED WHEN A TRUCK RAN INTO IT; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING SAFETY MEASURES WHEN WORKING NEAR TRAFFIC APPLIED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when a truck struck a cable which whiplashed and struck plaintiff. It was alleged Industrial Code section 12 NYCRR 23-1.29(a) was violated. That Code provision reads: “Whenever any construction, demolition or excavation work is being performed over, on or in close proximity to a street, road, highway or any other location where public vehicular traffic may be hazardous to the persons performing such work, such work area shall be so fenced or barricaded as to direct such public vehicular traffic away from such area, or such traffic shall be controlled by designated persons:”

… [T]here is no dispute that the Industrial Code section upon which plaintiff relies is sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. In addition, the facts show plaintiff was still engaged in construction, aloft in a lift bucket and tightening a newly installed steel cable wire, in close proximity to public vehicular traffic on a roadway, when a moving truck struck the cable that was installed in an underpass area and caused the cable to whiplash and strike plaintiff. At the time, there was no flag person or erected barricades to control traffic in the work area. Accordingly, the evidence established that 12 NYCRR 23-1.29(a) was violated and that this violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, as plaintiff was not required to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault in order to be awarded summary judgment on that claim … . Bucci v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 00124, First Dept 1-11-24

Practice Point: Here a truck ran into a cable which whiplashed and struck plaintiff. The Industrial Code provision requiring safety measures, such as flagmen or barriers, when working in the vicinity of traffic applied and supported the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

, ,

THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the guarantor of a lease for a barbershop that was forced to close by the Governor of New York during COVID was relieved of liability for unpaid rent only for the period covered by NYC’s Guaranty Law:

As part of its declarations of intent and findings for the amendments extending the closing of the period of the Guaranty Law (first from September 30, 2020 to March 31, 2021, then from March 31, 2021 to June 30, 2021), the City Council made plain that the protections were “temporary,” and designed to provide businesses covered by the law with “a reasonable recovery period with a duration that is comparable to the period of time that [the] businesses were forced to close or operate with significant limitations on indoor occupancy” (New York City Local Laws 98/2020 and 50/2021, §§ 1[a][7], [9]).

In light of the language of the Guaranty Law and its legislative history, we conclude that the law “bars only those claims against guarantors seeking rent that came due within the [law’s] protection period” … . Tamar Equities Corp. v Signature Barbershop 33 Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00039, First Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: New York City’s Guaranty Law relieves a guarantor of its liability for unpaid rent during a COVID-related business closure only for the “COVID” period described in the Guaranty Law.

 

DEFENDANT INSURER DID NOT TIMELY DISCLAIM COVERAGE AND IS THEREFORE OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE INSURED; A DISCLAIMER-NOTIFICATION MUST BE SPECIFIC AND UNAMBIGUOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant Navigators Insurance Company, did not timely notify plaintiff Titan that Navigators was disclaiming coverage. Therefore Navigators was required to defend Titan:

Because Navigators sought to deny coverage based on that policy exclusion, it was required under Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) to provide written notice of the disclaimer as soon as reasonably possible after receiving Titan’s tender in which it sought coverage under as an additional insured … . Furthermore, the application of this exclusion was obvious and did not require an investigation … . We therefore find that Navigators’ unexplained delay in disclaiming coverage – seven months after the first tender and almost three months after the second was unreasonable as a matter of law … .

We reject Navigators’ contention that it did, in fact, disclaim coverage in an email to Titan’s insurance broker. Although the email mentioned the exclusion, it did not unequivocally state that Navigators was disclaiming coverage (Insurance Law § 3420[d][2] …). Nor did the email apprise Titan, with the high degree of specificity required, of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer was predicated … . Titan Indus. Servs. Corp. v Navigators Ins. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 00041, First Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: An insurer must notify the insured it is disclaiming coverage as soon as possible and in specific, unambiguous language.

 

,

THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION’S (NRA’S) FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL (NYAD) WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITH RESPECT TO THE RETALIATION COUNTERCLAIM, THE NYAD DEMONSTRATED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUE THE NRA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scarpulla, determined the National Rifle Association’s (NRA’s) First Amendment retaliation and selective enforcement counterclaims against the New York Attorney General (NYAG) were properly dismissed. The First Amendment retaliation claim was properly analyzed under the “no probable cause” standard. The underlying action by the NYAD alleged improper use of NRA funds by the defendants, among other allegations:

… [T]he NRA asserted counterclaims against the NYAG for First Amendment retaliation and selective enforcement. Specifically, the NRA alleged that while the NYAG was campaigning for her current position, she displayed animus towards the NRA by promising to “take down the NRA” using her power as attorney general to regulate charities. James allegedly called the NRA a “terrorist organization” and “criminal enterprise.” The NRA further alleged that the NYAG, rather than working with the NRA to fix issues, as it has done in other cases involving not-for-profit corporations, instead sought dissolution, an extreme remedy not frequently pursued by the NYAG. * * *

On this issue of first impression, we hold that the proper legal standard applicable to First Amendment retaliation claims in civil enforcement proceedings such as this one is the no probable cause standard articulated in Hartman and Nieves (see generally DeMartini v Town of Gulf Stream, 942 F3d 1277, 1304-1306 [11th Cir 2019] …, McBeth v Himes, 598 F3d 708, 717-720 [10th Cir 2010]). …

Applying the no probable cause standard here, the NRA’s First Amendment retaliation counterclaims were properly dismissed for lack of causation … . That is, the NYAG showed as a matter of law that it had probable cause to investigate and sue the NRA … . People v National Rifle Assn. of Am., 2023 NY Slip Op 06819, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: The correct standard for analyzing a First Amendment retaliation claim is whether there was “no probable cause” to commence the underlying lawsuit. Here the First Department determined the NYAG had probable cause to sue the NRA, which defeated the NRA’ First Amendment retaliation counterclaim.

 

, , ,

THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE BUS-VEHICLE COLLISION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE TEN MONTH DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent city in this bus-vehicle accident case had timely knowledge of the essential facts of the incident and therefore was not prejudiced by the late notice of claim. The court noted that law office failure is not an adequate excuse for failing to timely file a notice of claim, but using that excuse did not mandate denial of the motion:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s application, as petitioner established that respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts within the statutorily prescribed filing period … . As the record showed, the accident involved an NYCTA-owned bus and an NYCTA driver, and was immediately investigated by an NYCTA supervisor. Therefore, petitioner sustained his burden of showing that respondents would not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits if he were permitted leave to file a late notice of claim … .

In response to petitioner’s showing, respondents offered no particularized evidence suggesting that they would be prejudiced by the delay. Therefore, respondents have failed to rebut petitioner’s showing … . Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 06591, First Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: If the municipality has timely knowledge of the essential fact underlying a claim (here a bus-vehicle accident) and is not prejudiced by the delay, a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim may be granted even in the absence of an adequate excuse.

 

,

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.

 

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