First Department – Page 42 – New York Appellate Digest

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN PLAINTIFF’S CAR MADE A LEFT TURN AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO SEE DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff pedestrian was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff was in the crosswalk when defendant made left turn and struck plaintiff from behind. Plaintiff could not be held comparatively negligent for failing to see and avoid the defendant‘s vehicle:

Plaintiff pedestrian established prima facie entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that she was crossing Broadway, within the crosswalk, with a “walk” sign in her favor, after looking both ways, when defendant’s vehicle, which was making a left turn onto Broadway, struck her from behind on her right side, pinning and dragging plaintiff under the vehicle and causing severe injuries to her right leg … . Plaintiff’s version of the accident is supported by the police report showing damage solely to the front driver side of the defendant’s vehicle following the accident and the medical reports and photographs showing the injuries to plaintiff’s right leg.

A plaintiff, who is struck by a vehicle that approaches from behind and to the right after turning left into the crosswalk where it struck plaintiff, may not be held comparatively negligent based on a theory that she could have seen and avoided the vehicle through the exercise of ordinary care … Shin v Ljulja, 2023 NY Slip Op 04740, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff pedestrian in a crosswalk was not comparatively negligent for not seeing defendant’s car making a left turn and striking plaintiff from behind.

September 26, 2023

THE STRUCTURED ACQUISITION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE OPERATING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the operating agreement was not breached. The facts and issues are too complex to fairly summarize here:

The primary question on this appeal is whether an acquisition of a limited liability company, which transaction was structured as a sale of 100 percent of the membership interests in the target company, may be characterized as a dissolution of the company under the terms of its operating agreement. A former preferred shareholder of the target company, seeking to recover the preferred return to which it would be entitled upon a dissolution, argues that the sale of the company’s equity should qualify as a dissolution under the operating agreement because the transaction necessarily involved the transfer of control of all of the company’s assets and the operating agreement provides that dissolution must occur “upon the disposition by the Company of substantially all of its assets.” We are not persuaded by this argument, and therefore modify the order under review to grant defendants summary judgment dismissing the former preferred shareholder’s cause of action for breach of contract. Southern Advanced Materials, LLC v Abrams, 2023 NY Slip Op 04704, First Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: This factually complex opinion in a breach-of-contract action grapples with what constitutes a dissolution of a company under the terms of the operating agreement.

September 20, 2023

Appeals, Attorneys, Family Law

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.

September 14, 2023

Labor Law-Construction Law, Negligence

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.

September 7, 2023

Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Evidence, Judges, Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)

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.

September 7, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Evidence

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.

August 10, 2023

Contract Law, Family Law

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.

July 27, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Evidence, Labor Law-Construction Law, Municipal Law

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.

July 13, 2023

Contract Law

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).

July 13, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Corporation Law

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.

June 29, 2023

Tag Archive for: First Department