You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROOF PRESENTED BY ASSIGNED COUNSEL AT THE FIRST HEARING AND CONSIDERED “NEW” FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Family Court over a detailed and comprehensive dissent, determined mother was entitled to a new hearing on her petition to relocate to North Carolina because her assigned counsel did not adequately present evidence of the financial necessity of the move. The dissent would grant the petition to relocate based on the existing record:

… [A]s the attorney for the child argues on this appeal, the mother’s motion to this Court for a stay pending appeal (a motion this Court granted by order entered November 15, 2022 and continued by order entered April 20, 2023), raised legitimate concerns about the adequacy of representation by her assigned counsel at the fact-finding hearing on her relocation petition. Specifically, … the mother attests that counsel failed to adequately present evidence of the financial necessity that supports her decision to relocate. On account of these omissions, as well as the passage of time and intervening events that have occurred since the court’s September 6, 2022 order, we reverse the court’s denial of the mother’s petition and remand for a new hearing to determine what is in the child’s best interests … . Although the facts warranting a new hearing are outside the record on appeal, given that changed circumstances have particular significance in child custody matters, we take notice of the new facts to the extent they indicate that the record is no longer sufficient to determine the mother’s relocation petition … . Matter of Emily F. v Victor P., 2023 NY Slip Op 04634, First Dept 9-14-23

Practice Point: Here the First Department considered “new” facts which were  not part of the record on appeal in determining there should be a new hearing on mother’s petition to relocate.

 

,

PLAINTIFF STORE MANAGER FELL FROM A LADDER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE CEILING TILES DAMAGED BY A LEAK IN THE ROOF; PLAINTIFF SUED THE BUILDING OWNER; THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law causes of action in this ladder-fall case were property dismissed, but the common law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, the manager of a Dunkin Donuts, fell from the ladder when attempting to replace ceiling tiles damaged by a leak in the roof. Plaintiff sued the building owner:

Labor Law § 241(6) applies only to a narrow class of protected workers engaged in “constructing or demolishing buildings in areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . * * *

The Labor Law § 200 claim arises from the method of work, involving an inadequate ladder, but defendants exercised no supervisory control over the work, and therefore no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 … .

… [T]he record raises triable issues of fact as to whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of an unsafe ceiling leak and whether the leak proximately caused plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff alleged that the leak created a slippery condition on the ladder. Yousuf v Horace Plaza, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04492, First Dept 9-7-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 241(6) applies only if plaintiff was injured constructing or demolishing a building. Labor Law 200 (re: method of work) applies only only when defendant exercises supervisory control over the work. Therefore the Labor Law causes of action did not apply to the store manager’s falling from a ladder while attempting to replace ceiling tiles damaged by a leak in the roof.

 

, , , ,

THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the SORA court should not have reopened the SORA risk-level hearing to amend its prior risk-level ruling. The criteria for a motion to renew were not met and the other justifications for re-opening the hearing were not applicable:

… [T]here are three ways in which a court could amend its SORA determination…. First, a party may move for leave to renew. A court may grant a motion for leave to renew only where (1) the motion alleges new facts and (2) the movant provides reasonable justification for not offering those facts in the original proceedings (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; …). The court has discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable justification … and to relax the requirements of CPLR 2221(e) in the interest of justice … . * * *

Second, a court has an inherent authority to reopen a hearing “to correct its own order to rectify a mistake of law or fact” on a SORA decision … . This inherent authority stems from the “overriding purposes and objectives of SORA” to, inter alia, “protect [] vulnerable populations and . . . the public from potential harm” …. .

Here, the motion court could not have acted based on its inherent authority because the motion court did not make a mistake in its initial decision … . * * *

Third, a new hearing can be ordered to give the People an opportunity to make an application for an upward modification where the People refrained from making that argument when the motion court assessed points which resulted in the defendant being assigned presumptively to the level sought by the People … . * * *

Here, the motion court properly gave the People time to respond to defendant’s assertions and the People chose to introduce the new materials only belatedly.  People v Adams, 2023 NY Slip Op 04490, First Dept 9-7-23

Practice Point: The three ways a SORA motion court can amend a risk-level determination are described in detail. None were applicable here.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT REHABILITATION FACILITY DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED THE ADMISSIONS AGREEMENT USING AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT CALLED DOCUSIGN; THEREFORE THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant rehabilitation facility, Dewitt. did not demonstrate plaintiff’s decedent signed the facility’s admission agreements. Therefore the forum selection clause in the agreements should not have been enforced by the motion court. The agreements were allegedly signed using an electronic format called Docusign. But the defendant did not submit any evidence demonstrating how Docusign works and did not submit an affidavit by the representative who allegedly witnessed plaintiff’s signatures. The agreement was not, therefore, authenticated and was not admissible evidence of an agreement to the forum:

… [T]he “burden of proving the existence, terms and validity of a contract rests on the party seeking to enforce it” … . This requires, in the first instance, authentication of the purported writing … . Authentication may be effected by various means, including, for example, by certificate of acknowledgment (see CPLR 4538), by comparison of handwriting (see CPLR 4536), or by the testimony of a person who witnessed the signing of the document … .

Here, …in support of its motion, Dewitt submitted Trimarchi’s [the defendant’s director of admission’s] affidavit, along with copies of the admissions agreements. Trimarchi admitted, however, that she was not present during the signing of the admissions agreement. Trimarchi attested only to her understanding of how admissions agreements were usually signed; she had no actual knowledge of how the agreements bearing decedent’s name came to be signed. Moreover, Trimarchi did not describe any protocols governing the use of Docusign. Accordingly, her affidavit cannot serve to authenticate the agreements … . Dewitt did not seek to authenticate decedent’s signature by any other means, such as a certificate of acknowledgment or a handwriting exemplar. Since Dewitt failed to authenticate the agreements, it correspondingly failed to show that the forum selection clauses set forth in those documents are enforceable against plaintiff … . Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04258, First Dept 8-10-23

Practice Point: This case illustrates the need to authenticate signatures which involve some sort of electronic signing format. Here the defendant did not demonstrate how the electronic signature format worked and therefore did not authenticate plaintiff’s decedent’s signature. The forum selection clause in the agreement, therefore, could not be enforced.

 

,

UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S CHILD WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S PLAN UNTIL THE CHILD TURNED 29; THEREFORE THE STIPULATED ORDER IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE CHILD UNDER THE PLAN FOR AS LONG AS THE LAW ALLOWS REQUIRED COVERAGE TO AGE 29; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A CUT-OFF AT AGE 26 PURSUANT TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the provisions of a stipulated order in a divorce proceeding (section 6.3)  providing that plaintiff would pay for medical insurance for a child (T.D.) for as long as coverage was available under the employer’s family plan were unambiguous and must be enforced. Because the “Age 29” law allowed the child to remain covered by plaintiff’s employer’s plan until age 29. plaintiff was obligated to pay for that coverage. The argument that the provision was ambiguous allowing extrinsic evidence that the parties contemplated only the Affordable Care Act’s cut-off at age 26 was rejected: The “Age 29” act was passed before the issuance of the stipulated order:

… [T]he practical and reasonable interpretation of § 6.3 is that, to the extent plaintiff can maintain health insurance for T.D. through his employer, he is required to do so as long as any relevant law permits coverage for T.D. As he acknowledges in his brief (and as the evidence he submitted in opposition to the motion establishes), T.D. has coverage under the same health insurance plan provided by plaintiff’s employer to its employees. Thus, by virtue of the fact that plaintiff has health insurance through his employer, Age 29 Law coverage is available to T.D. B.D. v E.D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03971, First Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: Here the stipulated order entered in the divorce proceedings required plaintiff to provide medical insurance to the child as long as the child could be covered by law under the employer’s plan. The Age 29 Law allowed coverage until age 29. The argument that the stipulated order was ambiguous allowing extrinsic proof that the parties contemplated only the age 26 cut-off under the Affordable Care Act was rejected.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE UNDER A CITY STREET; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY PERMIT RENDERED THE CITY A PROPER DEFENDANT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, over a two-justice dissent, determined the City was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law case. Plaintiff was working for a subsidiary of Verizon (Empire City) laying a conduit in a trench in the street when a backhoe pushed a metal plate onto his foot. The City argued it was not an owner under the Labor Law, had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and there was no nexus between the City and and the work performed by Verizon. The majority held there were questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon, and whether a permit for the work had been issued by the City. Although the “lack of a nexus” argument was raised for the first time in reply, the majority held the issue raised a question of law and was properly considered by the motion court:

The witness’s lack of knowledge renders his testimony inconclusive and speculative as to whether Empire City was working without a permit on the day plaintiff was injured, warranting denial of summary judgment … . * * *

… [T]here remain triable issues of fact as to whether there existed a nexus between plaintiff and the City … . Furthermore, plaintiff sought certified copies of the franchise agreements for both Verizon and Empire City as part of discovery and defendant failed to provide them. Thus, the City’s challenge to the franchise documentation as being unauthenticated should have been rejected by the court, as copies of the documents remained in defendant’s exclusive possession and control but were not provided to plaintiff …  Powell v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03843, First Dept 7-17-23

Practice Point: The plaintiff was employed by a subsidiary of Verizon and was injured laying a conduit in a trench under a City street. The City claimed it had no nexus to the work done by Verizon. The majority held questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon and the issuance of a permit by the City precluded summary judgment in favor of the City. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS THE RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF THE DEFENDANTS ARE NONSIGNATORIES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT A “CATCH ALL” CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the existence of a contract covering the relevant issue precluded the unjust enrichment cause of action, even though defendants were not signatories to the contract:

“The existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter” … . It makes no difference that defendants are not parties to the contracts governing the dispute, as “a nonsignatory to a contract cannot be held liable where there is an express contract covering the same subject matter” … . * * *

… “[U]njust enrichment is not a catchall cause of action . . . . It is available only in unusual situations when, though the defendant has not breached a contract nor committed a recognized tort, circumstances create an equitable obligation running from the defendant to the plaintiff” … . Here, plaintiff states a claim against defendants for recognized torts, obviating the need for the creation of that obligation. Iberdrola Energy Projects v MUFG Union Bank, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03841, First Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If a contract covers the relevant issue, unjust enrichment is not available, even if the defendants are nonsignatories. Unjust enrichment is not a “catch all” cause of action and is appropriate only when there is no actionable breach of contract and the relevant issue is not otherwise addressed by other causes of action (here certain torts).

 

, ,

HERE THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NON-SIGNATORY AND THE PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT WARRANTED FINDING THAT THE NON-SIGNATORY WAS BOUND BY THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, after reinstating the tortious interference with contract cause of action, determined a non-signatory can be bound by a forum selection clause under the “closely related” doctrine. where the non-signatory and the party to the agreement have such a close relationship that it is foreseeable the forum selection clause will be enforced against the non-signatory:

We find that plaintiff alleged a sufficiently close relationship between Vivendi and the Editis Defendants to justify subjecting it to personal jurisdiction in New York … .  Plaintiff alleged that Editis … was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi, that Vivendi’s CEO was also the Chairman of Editis, and that Vivendi managed the Editis Defendants’ performance of the subject agreement …. . EPAC Tech. Ltd. v Interforum S.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03543, First Dept 6-29-23

Practice Point: Here the “close relationship” doctrine warranted finding the non-signatory was bound by the forum selection clause in the agreement. The non-signatory was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the party to the agreement and the non-signatory’s CEO was the chairman of the party to the agreement.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FAILED TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INQUEST; THE APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE NEGLECT OF THEIR ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the application for damages in this personal injury action should not have been denied due to plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to submit medical records for more than a year after the inquest. Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by their counsel’s inaction:

Although plaintiffs’ counsel had timely subpoenaed the relevant medical records and those records were apparently delivered to the subpoenaed records room in the courthouse, they were not available at the inquest. Supreme Court therefore reserved decision to give plaintiffs time to submit evidence supporting their damages claim. After a period of more than one year in which plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide the requested information, Supreme Court issued an order … denying the application for damages on the ground of failure of proof.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the underlying default. Although we share the court’s concern regarding the extended delay and the inattentiveness of plaintiffs’ former counsel, counsel’s neglect in pursuing his clients’ action should not be permitted to redound to the clients’ detriment … . Counsel did not deny that he failed to respond to communications from the court, but explained that the delays were due to a problem in his firm’s case management system, which did not provide reminders … . These circumstances present a type of law office failure for which the clients should not be penalized , particularly in light of the strong public policy preference for deciding cases on the merits … . In addition, defendants defaulted and therefore will not be prejudiced … . Rosario v General Behr Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03560, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the attorney’s failure to submit medical records requested by the judge after an inquest was not the type of law office failure for which plaintiffs should be penalized. The judge should not have dismissed the application for damages based on counsel’s neglect.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HIS ANSWER TO ASSERT A GRAVES AMENDMENT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR OF A VEHICLE); PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE LATENESS OF THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (Lubman;s) motion to amend his answer in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The lateness of the motion to amend did not cause sufficient prejudice to plaintiff to justify denial:

… [T]he court … improperly determined that the Graves Amendment is inapplicable here. Although Lubman did not clearly establish that he was a commercial lessor of motor vehicles … , he proffered sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to the Graves Amendment’s applicability. He submitted evidence that he owned between four and seven cars that he rented fifty-nine times over a nine-month period through Turo, a peer-to-peer car sharing service. This volume of rental activity, which involved several vehicles, demonstrated more than a casual or occasional endeavor. The fact that Lubman operated under his own name rather than a corporate entity was not determinative. The Graves Amendment defines “owner” as “a person,” which it defines, in part, as “any individual” as well as a “corporation, company . . . or any other entity” … . Thus, by its own terms, the Graves Amendment is intended to cover both individuals and corporate entities.

Supreme Court should have granted Lubman’s motion for leave to amend his answer to assert a Graves Amendment affirmative defense. Lubman demonstrated that his proposed amended answer was not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit …  Although plaintiff … claimed that they would be prejudiced by the amendment because Lubman waited ten months after his deposition before seeking leave to amend his answer, such delay was not significant prejudice that hindered their case preparation or prevented them from acting in support of their position … , as the note of issue had not yet been filed and Lubman could have been deposed further on the limited issue of the Graves Amendment affirmative defense. Ventura v Lubman, 2023 NY Slip Op 03444, First Dept 6-27-23

Practice Point: Although the motion to amend the answer was made 10 months after depositions, the note of issue had not been filed and defendant could be deposed further. The delay therefore did not prejudice plaintiff sufficiently to warrant denial of the motion.

Practice Point: The Graves Amendment limits the liability of a lessor of a vehicle involved in an accident to negligent maintenance or repair. The affirmative defense is available to individuals as well as business entities.

 

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