You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

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.

 

,

ALTHOUGH VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS ON A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY WAIVE THE PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSE TO THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR, HERE THE GARNISHMENT OF DEFENDANT’S WAGES FOR MORE THAN A YEAR DID NOT WAIVE THE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not waive the personal jurisdiction defense (CPLR 5015(a)(4)) by waiting more that a year to move to vacate the default judgment, despite the garnishment of defendant’s wages during that time. Voluntary payments on a default judgment would have waived the defense, but not garnishment:

The proper approach for determining whether a defendant has waived the CPLR 5015(a)(4) personal jurisdiction defense involves the consideration of whether the defendant’s particular actions amount to “an intentional relinquishment of a known right” … , and results from the taking of some affirmative action evincing the intent to accept a judgment’s validity — such as the making of voluntary payments to satisfy a default judgment prior to moving to vacate … . The mere fact that a defendant, like defendant here, was subject to payments pursuant to a wage garnishment order for more than one year without taking some action is not, without more, a proper basis for finding waiver of the ability to seek relief under CPLR 5015(a)(4) … . Esgro Capital Mgt., LLC v Banks, 2023 NY Slip Op 06312, First Dept 12-7-23

Practice Practice: Making voluntary payments on a default judgment would waive a defendant’s personal-jurisdiction defense to the failure to move to vacate a default judgment within a year. But the garnishment of defendant’s wages for more than a year did not waive the defense.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONTEST THE APPEALS AND WILL NOT PURSUE THE LITIGATION, THE APPEALS ARE NOT MOOT BECAUSE THE ORDER MAY AFFECT RELATED ACTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS; THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BROUGHT BEFORE DEFENDANTS ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) despite the fact that the plaintiffs indicated they do not contest the appeals and will not pursue the action which had been dismissed, the appeals are not moot because the dismissal may affect related actions against the defendants; and (2) the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, brought before the defendants had answered the amended complaint, was premature:

While plaintiffs do not contest the appeals and have represented that they will not be pursuing the underlying litigation, this does not render defendants’ appeals moot. The mootness doctrine will deprive a court of the ability to review a case where a change in circumstances between the parties has eliminated the controversy that once existed … . However, an appeal is not moot where “the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . Defendants have the right to appeal the order addressing the motion to dismiss because it may serve as unfavorable precedent in related cases that have been brought against them. Hutcher v Madison Sq. Garden Entertainment Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 06314, First Dept 12-7-23

Practice Point: An appeal is not moot when it is not contested if the order appealed from could affect related actions against the appellants.

 

THE SPA PATRON WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A FIGHT IN THE SPA BUT WAS ALLOWED TO REMAIN; THE FIGHT DID NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT SEXUAL ASSAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF FORESEEABLE BY THE DEFENDANT SPA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action against defendant spa based on a sexual assault by a spa patron should have been dismissed. The patron pretended to be an employee of the spa and offered plaintiff a massage. From the standpoint of the defendant spa, the patron’s assault was not foreseeable. The fact that the assailant was involved in a fight before the sexual assault and was allowed to remain in the spa did not render the sexual assault foreseeable:

While landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control … . Thus the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults … . To establish foreseeability based upon prior history of third-party criminal behavior, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location … .

Contrary to plaintiff’s allegations, it was not reasonably foreseeable that a fight occurring amongst male patrons, who had been drinking there, could lead to the alleged assailant pretending to be an employee of the spa and then sexually assaulting her … . The prior altercation noted by plaintiff was completely unrelated to her situation and thus cannot support a claim that the instant assault was a foreseeable consequence of defendant permitting the men involved in the altercation [to remain at the premises … . Memeh v Spa 88, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06315, First Dept 12-7-23

Practice Point: Here a spa patron pretending to be a masseuse employed by the spa sexually assaulted the plaintiff. The facts that the patron had been drinking and was involved in a fight but was allowed to remain in the spa did not render the subsequent sexual assault foreseeable.

 

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