You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the adverse inference jury charge was inappropriate because it requires, rather than permits, the jury to draw an adverse inference from the spoliation of evidence. The appeal was from the judge’s ruling on plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference charge. The judge was directed to fashion a new adverse inference charge:

Upon its determination that defendants’ spoliation of evidence amounted to gross negligence, the court directed that the jury be instructed that “had the evidence been preserved the evidence would have been against defendants’ position that [defendant] Marom and/or his workers did not cut down branches or trees or inserted rotting garbage in the barriers on [plaintiff’s] property.” This adverse inference charge is inappropriate because it “requires, rather than permits, the jury to draw an adverse inference” … . In any event, because the conflicting testimony in the record raises questions concerning the existence of the purportedly spoliated evidence, the issues of whether any spoliation had occurred and whether any adverse inference is warranted should be presented to the jury in the first instance … . Children’s Magical Garden, Inc. v Marom, 2023 NY Slip Op 05464, First Dept 10-31-23

Practice Point: With respect to spoliation of evidence, an adverse inference charge should permit, rather than require, the jury to find spoliation.

Practice Point: It appears that this appeal was brought before trial to address the erroneous adverse inference charge fashioned by the judge. The appeal successfully required the revision of the erroneous charge before the jury heard it.

 

, , ,

THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILLED OUT BY APPLICANTS FOR CITY JUDICIAL POSITIONS WERE PROTECTED FROM THE FOIL REQUEST BY THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined judicial questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption. The First Department noted that it did not have the authority in an article 78 proceeding to consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice:

… [T]he City properly applied the personal privacy exemption (Public Officer’s Law § 89[2][a]) to deny petitioner’s FOIL request in its entirety, as the City sustained its burden of establishing that disclosure of the records sought in this case — “all Uniform Judicial Questionnaires for applicants . . . under review by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary” as of October 21, 2020 — would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b] …). Disclosure of the questionnaire, which states the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in upper-case letters and boldface near the top of its first page, would undermine the assurances of confidentiality provided to candidates for judicial office … .

Moreover, disclosure would create a chilling effect, thus potentially diminishing the candor of applicants and causing others to decide against applying for judicial positions. The questionnaire contains extensive questions touching on highly personal and sensitive matters, such as personal relationships, reasons for leaving jobs, reasons for periods of unemployment, substance abuse, arrests, criminal convictions, testifying as a witness in criminal cases, and reasons for anticipated difficulty in handling the stresses involved in being a judge, as well as a catch-all question at the end of the questionnaire asking for any other information, specifically including unfavorable information, that could bear on the evaluation of the judicial candidate. In addition to the particular contents of the questionnaires, disclosure of the very fact that certain candidates submitted the questionnaires could harm those persons’ reputations by revealing that they sought to leave their jobs, or were unsuccessful in their applications for judicial positions … . Matter of Fisher v City of N.Y. Off. of the Mayor, 2023 NY Slip Op 05468, First Dept 10-31-23

Practice Point: Here the questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption.

Practice Point: In an article 78 proceeding an appellate court cannot consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice.

 

, , ,

​EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO PECUNIARY DAMAGES, WILL NOT SUPPORT AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined emotional and psychological damages, as opposed to pecuniary damages, will not support an action for breach of fiduciary duty:

… [P]laintiffs proffered no evidence showing that Atesa [plaintiff] sustained pecuniary damages, and adduced proof identifying only emotional and psychological injuries. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the allegations in the complaint that Atesa incurred financial expenses as a result of having to seek medical treatment and retain new counsel due to defendants’ alleged misconduct are insufficient to defeat summary judgment, absent any supporting evidentiary proof (see CPLR 3212[b] …). Plaintiffs’ contention that they could present such proof at trial is unavailing … . Because plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether recoverable damages were incurred, summary judgment dismissing the claim should have been granted … . Pacelli v Peter L. Cedeno & Assoc., PC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05448, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Emotional and psychological damages, as opposed to pecuniary damages, will not support an action for breach of fiduciary duty.

 

,

DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined both statements by the defendant, the first in the morning to detectives, the second in the afternoon to the district attorney, should have been suppressed. The first statement was suppressed by Supreme Court because the police told the defendant that any statement he made would not necessary be used against him and could help him if confessed. The second statement, although also preceded by the Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed because nothing was done to correct the misinformation from the police which preceded the first statement:

… Statement #2, along with the knife and DNA evidence recovered from the knife, should have been suppressed as there was not a sufficient break in the interrogation to dissipate the taint from the initial Miranda violation. This is not a case where defendant initially received improper warnings prior to giving Statement #1 and then later received proper warnings prior to giving Statement #2. Instead, defendant received complete and proper Miranda warnings prior to giving Statement #1, but they were undermined by the additional commentary and misleading statements made by the police officers … thereby violating defendant’s Miranda rights and requiring the suppression of Statement #1. Moreover, after the officers made the misleading statements, nothing was specifically done to correct any resulting misunderstanding to ensure that the defendant understood the import and effect of the Miranda warnings and that his statements could, and would, be used against him. This misunderstanding cannot be assumed to have simply dissipated after the Assistant District Attorney gave defendant the second Miranda warnings, even though the second warnings took place hours later and in a different room. As the second Miranda warnings did not dissipate the taint, they did not effectively protect defendant’s rights. Although it “is not the business of the police or the courts” to “provid[e] a general legal education” … , those institutions also cannot be allowed to proliferate misleading information in situations where a suspect is entitled to be advised of his rights. People v Savage, 2023 NY Slip Op 05452, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Although both the initial tainted statement to the police and the subsequent statement to the DA were preceded by Miranda warnings, because nothing was done to correct the misinformation provided by the police prior to the first statement, the second statement, made the same day, and the knife and DNA located based on the second statement, should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WHICH HAD RELINQUISHED CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A FLOOR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SLIPPERY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN WAXED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Trinity demonstrated it was an out-of-possession landlord and the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was under the control of the lessee (LSSNY), plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff alleged the floor was slippery because it had been waxed:

Defendant established prima facie that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual obligation to maintain the demised premises. Defendant also established prima facie, that the accident was not caused by a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory safety provision … . * * *

… [P]laintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant possessed and controlled the leased premises for purposes of liability. Plaintiff’s averment that she saw defendant’s personnel freely using the location during the three years she worked at the premises was insufficient to demonstrate that there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant relinquished complete control over the area before she fell … . Rodriguez v Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 2023 NY Slip Op 05453, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlord was not liable for plaintiff’s fall on a slippery floor. The alleged defect was not structural and did not violate a statutory duty.

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE; POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF WILL NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this Dram Shop Act did not present enough evidence to warrant summary judgment, noting that pointing to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof never sufficient:

Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim based on violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11—101; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65[2]). “[A] defendant when moving for summary judgment cannot merely point to gaps in the plaintiffs’ evidence, but must affirmatively demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment” … .

Although defendant’s manager testified about employee training and practices generally, his testimony regarding the incident at issue—including, inter alia, that he did not know whether any patrons were intoxicated on the date of the alleged incident, that he was not aware of anyone being asked to leave the establishment due to intoxication during the month of the incident, and that defendant did not keep records of intoxicated individuals—failed to carry defendant’s initial burden. Defendant’s further “reli[ance] on plaintiffs’ inability to prove that the assailants were served alcohol or were intoxicated” was similarly insufficient to carry its prima facie burden … . Bauseman v Pamdh Enters. Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05355, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Defendant’s pointing to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof is not be enough to support summary judgment.

 

, , ,

THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE PLAINTIFF, THERFORE, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a nonsignatory, the plaintiff Rosh, Inc., could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel:

The court should have denied the motion to compel arbitration of Rosh’s claims because Rosh is a nonsignatory to the agreement that contains the arbitration clause and defendants failed to show that the direct benefits theory of estoppel applies …  Under that theory, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where it “knowingly exploits the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … .

Here, the arbitration clause was contained in a partnership agreement. However, Rosh was not a party to that agreement nor a partner in the partnership. Rather, Rosh was a ten percent owner in a limited liability company that was the general partner of the partnership. This did not constitute a direct benefit to Rosh from the partnership agreement … .

Moreover, before Rosh could be compelled to arbitrate, it had to invoke or attempt to enforce the terms of the partnership agreement … . To the contrary, all of Rosh’s claims were asserted under the operating agreement of the limited liability company or based on its status as a member of that company. Gilat v Sutton, 2023 NY Slip Op 05363, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was a nonsignatory to the agreement with the arbitration clause. Because plaintiff did not directly benefit from or exploit the agreement, plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF PASSENGER SUED THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK A CAR FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE DRIVER FAILED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff passenger was not entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. The defendant, Rodriguez, was driving the car in which plaintiff was a passenger when it stuck another car driven by Espada. Plaintiff did not demonstrate that Rodriguez did not maintain a safe distance from the Espada car. Therefore plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case that Rodriguez was liable for a rear-end collision:

Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the accident was a rear-end collision resulting from Rodriguez’s failure to maintain a safe distance behind Espada’s vehicle, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) … . Rather, plaintiff testified that Rodriguez’s vehicle came in contact with Espada’s vehicle as Rodriguez was turning into an intersection, and plaintiff did not see the Espada vehicle prior to the accident and did not know if it was moving or stopped at the moment of impact. Absent a showing that Rodriguez negligently struck Espada’s vehicle due to a failure to maintain a safe distance, plaintiff, even as an innocent passenger, was not entitled to summary judgment … . McDowell v Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05368, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment in a rear-end collision case, the plaintiff must demonstrate the driver did not maintain a safe distance from the car in front.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, IT IS A VALID AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO DAMAGES; THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense should not have been dismissed. Although plaintiff’s comparative negligence is no longer a bar to summary judgment on liability, it is relevant to damages:

Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by the wheelchair ramp of a bus. That bus was owned by defendants and operated by an employee of defendants. The bus operator testified that he deployed the ramp and saw it hit plaintiff. He testified that he gave warnings in a loud voice before lowering the ramp, which made a “very loud” beeping noise that was “excruciating.”

Plaintiff met his prima facie burden by submitting evidence, including his deposition testimony, that the operator was negligent in lowering the ramp onto the sidewalk when it was not reasonably safe to do so … . In opposition, defendants did not offer any nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . This accident was not within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge, because it occurred in the presence of a potential witness, namely the operator … . Defendants’ remaining arguments effectively assert comparative negligence by plaintiff, which he was not required to disprove to be entitled to partial summary judgment … .

Supreme Court should not, however, have dismissed the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. At summary judgment, issues of credibility may not be resolved, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party … . Prendergast v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 05378, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Even where a plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on liability, a defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense remains relevant to damages.

 

, ,

PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER WAS INJURED WHEN HE BECAME DEHYDRATED DURING TRAINING; HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE THE INJURY DID NOT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF AN UNEXPECTED EVENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner NYC firefighter was not entitled to accidental retirement (ADR) benefits because he was injured performing routine duties and not when responding to an unexpected event. Petitioner suffered an injury to his leg due to dehydration during training:

ADR benefits are awardable only where the individual’s disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident, i.e., “a ‘sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact'” … . Petitioner’s injury was the result of an incidental — not accidental — event … because the injury was sustained while petitioner was performing routine duties, not as a result of an unexpected event … . Dehydration suffered by petitioner while running in hot weather in heavy gear was a foreseeable risk of the firefighting training exercise … . Matter of Rivera v Board of Trustees of N.Y. Fire Dept., 2023 NY Slip Op 05379, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Here a NYC firefighter was injured during training, not as a result of an “unexpected event.” Therefore he was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits.

 

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