You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

WHERE A JURY NOTE DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DESCRIBE A REQUESTED EXHIBIT, THE NOTE MUST BE READ OR SHOWN TO THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES MUST BE ALLOWED INPUT RE: THE PROPER RESPONSE; HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not follow proper procedure re: notes received from the jury during deliberations:

The court did not follow the procedures set forth in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270[1991]) with regard to several jury notes. The record does not reflect that the court read or showed four of the jury’s notes to the parties or afforded them an opportunity to provide input regarding the proper response to the notes. Indeed, the record contains no indication that these four notes, each of which sought trial exhibits, were responded to at all. While “[n]otes that only require the ministerial act of sending exhibits into the jury room do not implicate the requirements of O’Rama” and CPL 310.30 … , notes that do not unambiguously describe the requested exhibits warrant input from counsel and are subject to O’Rama’s requirement of meaningful notice. Here, at least two of the notes that the court did not address fall into this latter category. Because of this mode of proceedings error, a new trial is called for. People v Baptiste, 2023 NY Slip Op 02835, First Dept 5-25-23

Practice Point: Although the judge need not share with the parties a note from the jury which requires only a ministerial act, the judge must share a note which is ambiguous about which exhibits are requested. The failure to share the note requires reversal and a new trial.

 

, ,

THE PROOF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE FORTHCOMING CUSTODY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OCCURRING AFTER THE HAGUE CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS IN CYPRUS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the proof of domestic violence at the upcoming custody trial should not have been limited to incidents occurring after the Hague Convention proceedings in Cyprus:

… [T]hat aspect of the order that limits the proof of domestic violence that the mother may try to introduce at the forthcoming custody trial to incidents that have occurred since conclusion of the Hague Convention proceedings, is vacated. The court correctly recognized “[a] decision under the Convention is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue, but leaves custodial decisions to the courts of the country of habitual residence” … . However, it then effectively vested the Hague Convention proceedings with preclusive effect as to claims of domestic violence, by ruling that, at the impending custody hearing, the mother could only seek to introduce evidence of domestic violence that has occurred since those proceedings’ conclusion. There should have been no such temporal limitation imposed on the domestic violence evidence the mother may seek to introduce. Gould v Kontogiorge, 2023 NY Slip Op 02824, First Dept 5-25-23

Practice Point: Here Family Court should not have limited proof of domestic violence at the upcoming custody trial to incidents occurring after the Hague Convention proceedings in Cyprus. A Hague Convention is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue.

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE WERE HELPING THE COMPLAINANT PROCURE A U VISA WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE COMPLAINANT TO STAY IN THE US AND APPLY FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE WAS BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE; U VISAS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALIENS WHO SUFFER ABUSE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENTS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined defendants’ convictions should be reversed and the indictments dismissed because the People failed to reveal they were helping the complainant procure a U visa which would allow the complainant to remain in the United States and apply for permanent residence. A U visa is available to an alien who has suffered abuse as a victim of criminal activity. The defendants have already served their sentences and have been deported:

A U visa is available to an alien who “has suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal activity[,] . . . possesses information concerning criminal activity . . . [and] . . . has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful” to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or other authority prosecuting criminal activity … . * * *

To obtain a U visa from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an applicant must first acquire a certification from a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or other Federal, State, or local authority investigating criminal activity (see 8 USC § 1184 [p][1]). The certification must confirm that the applicant for a U visa “‘has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful'” in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity … . Without a certification, the applicant cannot obtain a U visa. Law enforcement is not mandated to issue the certification … .

The U visa is a valuable benefit. Under Section 245(m) of the Act, after three years of continuous presence in the United States (in which the recipient also receives work authorization), the recipient may apply for lawful permanent residence in the United States. * * *

… [W]e cannot know what a jury would have done with further, material, impeachment arising from the U visa evidence. It might have found the U visa evidence fatally undermined [the complainant’s] credibility. We find that there is reasonable probability that had the jury considered the U visa evidence, it would have raised enough reasonable doubt to produce a different outcome. People v Flores, 2023 NY Slip Op 02768, First Dept 5-23-23

Practice Point: The People did not inform the defense they were helping the complainant procure a U visa which would allow the complainant to remain in the US and apply for permanent residence. A U visa is available to an alien who suffered abuse as a victim of criminal activity. The U-visa-information was Brady material which could have affected the outcome of the trial. The convictions were reversed and the indictments dismissed.

 

​ DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED VIRTUALLY AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; RESENTENCING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to be resentenced because the sentencing was virtual and defendant did not waive his right to be present:

… [D]efendant is entitled to be resentenced because he had a right to be personally present at his sentencing, and he did not expressly waive that right during the virtual proceeding (see CPL 380.40[1] …). People v Barksdale, 2023 NY Slip Op 02744, First Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: For a virtual sentencing to be valid, the defendant must waive his right to be present.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE READ THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS HYPERLINKED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE AGREED TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff agreed to arbitrate based upon the hyperlinks in the document plaintiff reviewed:

Uber [defendant] sustained its burden of demonstrating that the parties had an explicit and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate. … [P]laintiff had agreed to be bound by the arbitration agreement when he affirmatively indicated and confirmed, by taking two separate actions, that he had reviewed and agreed to Uber’s updated terms of use, which were overtly hyperlinked as part of the pop-up screen and sufficient to form a binding contract … .

… [P]laintiff was on inquiry notice of the updated Terms of Use that required any disputes between the parties to be resolved by arbitration. Although a clickwrap agreement’s terms and conditions must be clear and conspicuous, they need not all be simultaneously and immediately visible; the terms may be binding and enforceable even if they are only accessible through a hyperlink … . The keys to enforceability are a reasonable indication of the existence of the additional terms and the user’s being required to manifest assent to them … . Brooks v Lang Yang, 2023 NY Slip Op 02610, First Dept 5-15-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was deemed to have read information which was hyperlinked and therefore was deemed to have agreed to arbitrate.

 

, , ,

THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND SEX DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS WERE NOT UNTIMELY BECAUSE A CONTINUING COURSE OF CONDUCT LEADING UP TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WAS ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s hostile work environment and sex discrimination claims should not have been dismissed as untimely because a continuing pattern was sufficiently alleged:

The allegations supporting plaintiff’s hostile work environment and sex discrimination claims are timely, as she has sufficiently alleged facts comprising “a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the [limitations] period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint” … . The complaint alleges that, following Corn’s sexual assault on plaintiff in February 2015, he continued to stare at her, lurked by her desk, made inappropriate, flirtatious comments toward her, disclosed intimate details about his marriage, and frequently pressured her to go out drinking, within the limitations period. It cannot be said that, as a matter of law, these acts were not part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct supporting her hostile work environment and discrimination claims … .

Moreover, under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107) and amended New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296[h]), the allegations that Corn sexually assaulted plaintiff in 2015 and engaged in a pattern of gender-based misconduct in the workplace, demonstrate that she was subjected to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of her gender … . Crawford v American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02611, First Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Here the hostile work environment and sex discrimination claims should not have been dismissed as untimely because a continuing course of conduct up until the filing of the complaint was alleged.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM SIDEWALKS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO SO; THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALSO MAKES PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL; THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY STATED DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE FROM THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant, 185th Operating, was not liable for a sidewalk ice and snow slip and fall. Although the NYC Administrative Code makes tenants responsible for removing ice and snow from sidewalks, it does not impose tort liability for a failure to do so. Here the lease explicitly stated the tenant is not responsible for clearing ice and snow:

Although the applicable statute requires tenants to clear snow and ice from the sidewalks around their premises, the statute does not impose tort liability for noncompliance (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-123[a] …). Furthermore, Administrative Code § 7-210(a), which requires property owners to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property, does not impose liability on 185 Operating, as 185 Operating is a tenant of the premises, not the owner. Not only did 185th Operating’s lease with defendant owner … specifically state that 185th Operating was not responsible for maintaining the sidewalks adjacent to the premises, but [the owner’s] lease with defendant Staples …, a tenant occupying the same building as 185th Operating, expressly made Staples responsible for clearing snow and ice from the sidewalk where the icy condition had occurred.

The record does not present any evidence that 185th Operating’s earlier voluntary snow removal created or exacerbated a hazardous condition that then caused plaintiff’s injury … . Cruz v Heights Broadway, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02612, First Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Here the lease specifically stated the defendant tenant was not responsible for removing ice and snow from the sidewalk. The NYC Administrative Code requires tenants to remove ice and snow but does not impose tort liability for the failure to do so. The code also requires owners to remove ice and snow. The tenant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

PLAINTIFF, AN EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT GAWKER, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE DAILY BEAST REPORTERS WHO WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT GAWKER VIOLATED THE “GROSS IRRESPONSIBILITY STANDARD” IN MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF; THE DEFAMATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an editor, did not sufficiently allege the reporters who wrote a story about the company where plaintiff worked acted in a “grossly irresponsible manner,” the standard for defamation in this context:

Plaintiff, who at the time of the article was employed by BDG Media as the editorial director of the digital media website Gawker, alleges that the article contained misleading excerpts of her communications with her colleagues at Gawker, omitting relevant context in order to inaccurately portray her as racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and transphobic. Plaintiff further alleges that the statements published in the article were false, misleading, or, to the extent they contained literal truth, taken out of context to place her in a defamatory light. Plaintiff maintains that … BDG Media terminated her employment as a result of the article.

… [P]laintiff’s defamation cause of action withstands dismissal only if she adequately alleges that defendants, all of whom are members of the media, “‘acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties'” in writing and publishing the article … The “gross irresponsibility standard demands no more than that a publisher utilize methods of verification that are reasonably calculated to produce accurate copy” and does not require “exhaustive research [or] painstaking judgments” … . Furthermore, the alleged falsity or defamatory meaning of certain statements is not probative of whether defendants acted with gross irresponsibility … . Griffith v Daily Beast, 2023 NY Slip Op 02614, First Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Where matters of legitimate public concern are implicated, a plaintiff alleging defamation by reporters must allege the reporters violated the “gross irresponsibility standard;” the complaint here failed to do so.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT UNCONSITUTIONAL RENDERED THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON STATUTE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY IN 2016 UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN 2016 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department refused to consider a constitutional issue on appeal because the issue was not preserved. Defendant pled guilty in 2016. The defendant argued on appeal that a 2022 US Supreme Court ruling rendered the offense to which he pled guilty, Penal Law 265.03(3), unconstitutional. In order to preserve that issue for appeal, it must have been raised before the trial court in 2016. The US Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022]), declared New York’s license requirement for carrying a loaded firearm in public unconstitutional. Defendant pled guilty to possessing a loaded weapon outside his home or business:

Defendant did not preserve his claim that Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen …), or his related claim that the ineligibility of persons under 21 (such as himself at the time of the crime) to apply for licenses to carry firearms violates the Second Amendment. “This [preservation] requirement is no mere formalism, but ensures that the drastic step of striking duly enacted legislation will be taken not in a vacuum but only after the lower courts have had an opportunity to address the issue and the unconstitutionality of the challenged provision has been established” … .

“[D]efendant should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of the lack of preservation” on the ground that a constitutional challenge to Penal Law § 265.03(3) would have been futile … . Here, “[a]lthough [Bruen] had not yet been decided, and trial counsel may have reasonably declined to challenge the [constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.03 (3)], defendant had the same opportunity to advocate for a change in the law as [any other] litigant” … . Defendant is essentially making the argument that an “appellant should not be penalized for his failure to anticipate the shape of things to come,” but the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected that argument … . This preservation principle applies to constitutional claims … .

As an alternative holding, we find that on the present record, defendant has failed to establish that Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional. People v Adames, 2023 NY Slip Op 02623, Fist Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Even if there has been no ruling on the constitutionality of a statute at the time the offense is before the trial court, in order to preserve the constitutional issue it must be raised in the trial court. Here defendant argued a 2022 US Supreme Court ruling finding New York’s firearm licensing requirement unconstitutional rendered the possession-of-a-weapon statute to which he pled guilty in 2016 unconstitutional. The First Department held the issue was not preserved because it was not raised in the trial court in 2016.

 

,

THE STORE MANAGER TOOK THE TWO CANS OF RED BULL DEFENDANT WAS CARRYING FROM HIM AND TOLD HIM TO LEAVE THE STORE; THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE BURGLARY CONVICTION; AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED OTHERWISE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence supported the burglary charge. The defendant was stopped by the store manager carrying two cans of Red Bull. The manager took the cans and defendant left the store. The dissenters argued there was no evidence the defendant intended to leave the store without paying:

We disagree with the dissent that the surveillance video supports a reasonable inference that defendant was planning to purchase the two cans of Red Bull because he has “what appears to be cash” in his hand, while walking toward the front of the store. The record indicates that when defendant walked down the store aisle, toward the front of the store, holding a can of Red Bull in each hand, the store manager told him to stop. She then told defendant that he did not belong in CVS, and asked defendant to leave and to give her the two cans. Defendant apparently “became upset,” put the two cans down and immediately left the store. Defendant never indicated that he intended to buy the two cans of Red Bull or made any effort to pay for them. Following his arrest, defendant admitted to police that “[he] was thirsty, [he] need[ed] something to drink[,]” and that “all [he] took was a Red Bull.” In fact, the defense never sought to prove that defendant was carrying cash in his hand or made such an argument to the jury. This argument is purely speculative. The jury viewed the video and was able to decide for itself whether the video was “grainy” as well as what reasonable inferences could be drawn from the defendant’s actions. People v Williams, 2023 NY Slip Op 02467, First Dept 5-9-23

Practice Point: Here the store manager took the two cans of Red Bull defendant was carrying and told the defendant to leave the store, which he did. The strong dissent argued the burglary conviction was not supported because there was no evidence defendant did not intend to pay for the Red Bull.

 

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