You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been assessed risk-factor points based on a theory which defendant was unable to respond to because it was raised for the first time at the SORA risk-assessment hearing. The matter was remanded:

… [T]he court should have found that the People acted improperly in raising, for the first time at the hearing, as the basis for scoring defendant 15 points for inflicting physical injury under risk factor 1, a new reason or theory that differed from the basis for that scoring specified in the Board’s case summary and in the People’s prehearing submissions. This deprived defendant of the proper advance, informative notice of “the reasons” and “basis” for the People seeking the 15-point determination to which he was entitled under Correction Law § 168-n (3) and due process, so as to afford him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment … People v Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 05043, First Dept 10-5-23

Practice Point: If the People present a new risk-assessment theory at the SORA hearing, the court must give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond before issuing a ruling.

 

,

TO CONSIDER A LATE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE PARTIES MUST FIRST BE PUT ON NOTICE THE MOTION WILL BE TREATED AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the post answer motion to dismiss should not have been heard because there was no notice the motion would be treated as a summary judgment:

By summons and complaint dated July 8, 2021, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover approximately $360,000 in unpaid counsel fees. Defendant answered on or about August 18, 2021 and asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. On September 1, 2022, defendant moved under CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant’s post-answer motion to dismiss was not timely (CPLR 3211 [e] …). Thus, the motion could not be properly considered unless the parties were given adequate prior notice that the motion would be treated as a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 or unless an exception to the notice requirement applied (see CPLR 3211[c] … ). Because defendant does not argue that adequate notice was given or that an exception to the notice requirement applied, we reverse and remand for consideration after the parties are given the requisite notice …   Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP v 3 W. 16th St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04952, First Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: A late (post answer) motion to dismiss should not be considered unless the parties have been notified the motion will be treated as a summary judgment motion, or unless some exception to the notice requirement applies.

 

,

A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO PROVISIONS OF THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT REQUIRED A TRIAL TO RESOLVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a conflict between two provisions of the postnuptial agreement which could only be resolved by a trial:

“When parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” … . If a contract’s provisions are subject to more than one or conflicting reasonable interpretations, the agreement will be considered ambiguous, requiring a trial on the parties’ intent … . Here, the language of the agreement allows for more than one reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intentions when they entered into the agreement. The language regarding distribution of the parties’ assets is specifically contingent on the occurrence of the operative event otherwise without force or effect. This conflicts with further language that requires the wife to assume certain debt within 30 days of the execution of the agreement. These interrelated provisions are ambiguous as they are “reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, the parties’ intent underpinning these conflicting provisions must be addressed at trial. Bich v Bich, 2023 NY Slip Op 04918. First De[t 10-3-23

Practice Practice: Conflicting provisions in an agreement render the agreement ambiguous requiring a trial.

 

WHERE THERE IS A WRITTEN CONTRACT, AN ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT WILL NOT LIE AGAINST THIRD-PARTY NONSIGNATORIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the existence of a contract precludes an action for unjust enrichment brought against a third-party nonsignatory:

Plaintiff’s cause of action for unjust enrichment is barred by the written agreement between plaintiff and defendant condominium sponsor, despite the fact that appellants are nonsignatories to that agreement … . The case law is clear that even where a defendant is a third-party nonsignatory to a contract, there can be no cause of action sounding in quasi-contract where, as here, there is a valid contract in place and the contract covers the subject matter of the dispute … . Board of Mgrs. of the 15 Union Sq. W. Condominium v Azogui, 2023 NY Slip Op 04920, First Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: The existence of a written contract precludes an action for unjust enrichment against third-party nonsignatories.

 

, ,

THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH PAY STUBS AS A PREREQUISITE FOR HER RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT INFORMAL TIMESHEETS WERE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PAY STUBS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirement in the parties’ stipulation that, in order to receive child support, defendant must demonstrate her employment by furnishing pay stubs was not met by furnishing time sheets:

The parties’ stipulation of August 24, 2021, provides in pertinent part that plaintiff will pay defendant $2,000 per month “as a contribution towards [defendant’s] childcare expenses.” Plaintiff’s obligation to make the payment is conditioned upon defendant being “employed by a nonrelative” and upon her periodic furnishing to plaintiff of “paystub[s]” documenting such employment. The stipulation requires defendant to provide plaintiff with her first paystub from a given employer, the first and last paystub of each calendar year, and the paystub covering July 1 of each year. Defendant moved for an order directing plaintiff to make a childcare payment based on her provision of timesheets purporting to document childcare services that she performed for Matthew Kleban. Kleban is the father of two girls, one of whom is a friend of the parties’ daughter.

… [T]he parties, both represented by counsel, entered into a stipulation that expressly conditioned plaintiff’s obligation to make childcare payments upon defendant’s production of “paystub[s]” to document her employment by a nonrelative. The term “paystub” is defined as “a record that is given to an employee with each paycheck and that shows the amount of money earned and the amount that was removed for taxes, insurance costs, etc.” (https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paystub); accord Black’s Law Dictionary 1364 [11th ed 2019]). Under this definition, and based upon the circumstances herein, the informal timesheets produced by defendant plainly do not qualify as “paystubs.” In holding that plaintiff’s childcare payment obligation was nonetheless triggered under the stipulation because the timesheets were the “functional equivalent” of paystubs, the motion court impermissibly changed the meaning of the parties’ agreement by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction … . Franklin v Franklin, 2023 NY Slip Op 04925, First De[t 10-3-23

Practice Point: Here the judge’s finding that informal timesheets were the functional equivalent of pay stubs impermissibly changed the meaning of the parties’ stipulation. The stipulation required plaintiff to prove she was employed as a prerequisite for her receipt of child support.

 

A FALL OF 2O TO 25 FEET FROM A RAMP USED TO TRANSPORT MATERIALS IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT.)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action based upon his falling off a ramp. The fact that the ramp was not a substitute for a ladder or a scaffold was not relevant:

That the ramp was not intended to be used as a substitute for a ladder or scaffold, but rather was used to transport materials, is of no moment. Whether an accident involving a ramp is encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) turns on a number of factors, the primary one being whether the ramp covered a significant elevation differential … . Here … the height differential from the top of the ramp to the ground was 20 to 25 feet…. . Liu v Whitestar Consulting & Contr., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 9-28-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff fell 20 to 25 feet from a ramp used to transport materials. The fact that the ramp was not a substitute for a ladder or a scaffold did not place the accident beyond the reach of Labor Law 240(1). The extent of the elevation of the ramp was determinative.

 

, , ,

THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE AND THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements in the mortgage as well land the notice requirements imposed the RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated. Plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment:

… [N]either the affidavits nor the business records made the requisite demonstration of mailing as required by the mortgage agreement … . Although one of Serterus’s [the mortgage servicer’s] employees stated that Serterus followed the prior mortgage servicer’s procedures for mailing the default notice, she stated only that she had personal knowledge of Serterus’s recordkeeping practices and procedures, not that she had personal knowledge that the notice of default was actually mailed. Nor did the employee attest to her familiarity with the mailing procedures of either Chase, which the default notice identified as the sender, or its servicer … . Although the employee stated that records of the mailing were attached, the only record of mailing of the notice was the notice itself, which contained no information about whether and when it was mailed. Similarly, the affidavit by the other Serterus employee lacked any indication of how she concluded that the contractual default notice was, in fact, sent. In addition, defendant submitted an affidavit denying ever having received the notice … .

Further, service of the 90-day notice pre-foreclosure notice required by RPAPL 1304 did not comply with the requirement of service of the default notice required under the mortgage agreement. The mortgage agreement required that the default notice thereunder inform the defendant borrower that if the default was not cured by the date stated in the notice, the lender may require immediate payment in full. However, the RPAPL 1304 notice contains no such statement. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Adago, 2023 NY Slip Op 04717, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Proof of compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements in the mortgage as well as the notice requirements imposed by RPAPL 1304 are prerequisites to foreclosure.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT WHICH RENTED OUT THE AERIAL LIFT WHICH MALFUNCTIONED WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, PROPERLY SURVIVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the Labor Law causes of action could not be brough against the defendant (Ahern) which rented out the aerial lift which malfunctioned. Ahern was not an agent of the owner or contractor and exercised no control over the work, so the Labor Law causes of action did not apply. However Ahern could be liable under a negligence theory:

… [O]nly contractors and owners and their agents can be held liable for Labor Law violations … . To be an “agent” of an owner or contractor, a party must have the ability to supervise and control the worksite and/or plaintiff’s work … . Here, plaintiff does not dispute that Ahern was neither an owner nor contractor within the meaning of the statute. The complaint only alleges that Ahern owned and maintained the aerial lift, not that Ahern exercised any supervision or control over the worksite … .

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for negligence against Ahern. Plaintiff alleges that the aerial lift owned by Ahern malfunctioned, causing plaintiff’s coworker to spray plaintiff with the power washer. … [E]ven if plaintiff’s coworker proximately caused plaintiff’s injury, Ahern is not absolved of liability as “there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … . Kull v Ahern Rentals, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04721, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Here the company which rented out the aerial lift which malfunctioned was not an agent of the owner or contractor and exercised no control over the work. Therefore the Labor Law was not triggered. However, the company may be liable under a straight negligence theory.

 

, , ,

THE LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JOINED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to join or consolidate the Labor Law construction accident causes of action with the medical malpractice action stemming from the injuries should not have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced suit in Kings County against several construction-related entities alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence in connection with a work place accident causing injuries. After the accident plaintiff was taken to a NYCHHC facility for treatment. Plaintiff also commenced this suit in New York County against NYCHHC, alleging medical malpractice in connection with his post-accident treatment. Although the Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action involve common questions of fact, the medical malpractice action involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence and injuries that are irrelevant to the Labor law action, and there are no common defendants.

The issues and applicable legal principles presented in plaintiff’s Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action arising out of his subsequent treatment, are so dissimilar that joinder or consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602(a) would not be beneficial and would likely result in jury confusion … . Licona-Rubio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04722, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even though the construction-accident injuries were the basis for the medical malpractice action, the Labor Law and medical malpractice actions (against different defendants) should not have been joined or consolidated.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL WAS MADE RIGHT BEFORE JURY SELECTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT AN INQUIRY INTO THE REASON FOR IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have denied defendant’s request for new counsel without an inquiry, despite the timing of the request (right before jury selection):

“Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the court denied his request for new counsel without making any inquiry” into the substance of his request, “and without giving defendant any opportunity to explain the basis for his request” … . It is not dispositive that the request was first raised “[s]hortly before jury selection” … . “Even though the request for new counsel may well have been a delaying tactic, . . . the court had no basis to deny the application without hearing any explanation” … . People v Hernandez-Molina, 2023 NY Slip Op 04732, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even if the judge suspects the defendant’s request for new counsel is a delay tactic, an inquiry into the reason for the request must be made, If there is no inquiry, the case will be reversed on appeal.

 

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