You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

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.

 

,

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.

 

, ,

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.

 

, ,

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.

 

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