You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE MAT AND WARNING SIGN PLACED IN THE AREA WERE INADEQUATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this wet-floor slip and fall case. There was no evidence when the area was last inspected prior to fall. And there was evidence the mat and warning sign placed in the area were inadequate:

… [D]efendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition caused by the wet and slippery floor where plaintiff fell, as they did not submit any evidence establishing when they last inspected the vestibule on the day of the accident … . Rather, the evidence shows that the building’s superintendent was aware of the hazardous condition and tried to address it with a mat and caution sign. In addition, plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether these precautions were reasonable under the circumstances. Although a landlord is not obligated to continuously mop moisture tracked onto the floor of its premises by people entering from outside or to cover the entire floor with mats, here plaintiff claims that her accident was caused by the building superintendent’s placement of an unreasonably short anti-slip floor mat on known wet, glossy tiles on a newly laid floor … . Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to check to see if the wet floor warning sign remained in place after it was initially placed as a precautionary device. Rodriguez v KWIK Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02471, First Dept 5-9-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case the defendant must show the area was inspected close in time to the fall in order to prove a lack of constructive notice.

Practice Point: Even where, as here, the defendant attempts to address the dangerous condition (placing a mat and a warning sign in the area of the wet floor0 a question of fact may be raised about whether the measures taken were adequate.

Similar constructive-notice issue and result in Gomez v Samaritan Daytop Vil., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02458, First Dept 5-9-23

 

,

UNDER THE FACTS, PLAINTIFF CAN ASSERT A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE MULTILATERAL CONTRACTS; THE PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CONTRACTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that, under the facts, plaintiffs should be allowed to state a claim for tortious interference with contract against another signatory to the multilateral agreements:

We are asked to decide whether a party to multilateral contracts may be sued by its contracting counterparty for inducing a breach of those contracts. Here, we answer that question in the affirmative. The rights and duties of defendants are separate from those of the breaching party. Plaintiffs also lack a contractual remedy against defendants. Under this narrow set of circumstances, plaintiffs should be permitted to assert a cause of action for tortious interference with contract, despite defendants being signatories to the multilateral agreements. * * *

The general principle that only a nonparty to a contract can be liable for tortious interference derives from cases involving either bilateral contracts or contracts under which all defendants had the same or similar contractual obligations … . * * *

This reasoning does not apply, however, if the inducing party is subject to duties that are different from those it allegedly encouraged another party to the contract to breach. Given such facts, the plaintiff cannot assert that the offending defendant breached a contractual obligation to it. “[T]he fact that one may derive rights under the same agreement as two other contracting parties does not excuse interference with their contractual rights” … . When breaching and inducing parties have different rights and duties, if the plaintiff is unable to recover fully from the breaching party, a tortious interference claim against the inducing party may be necessary for the plaintiff to be made whole. Arena Invs., L.P. v DCK Worldwide Holding Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02476, First Dept 5-9-23

Practice Point: Usually only a nonparty to a contract can be liable for tortious interference. Here plaintiff and defendant were both signatories to multilateral contracts. Because both had different rights and duties under the contracts, plaintiff was allowed to assert a claim  for tortious interference with contract against defendant.

 

THE MOTION TO STRIKE INFLAMMATORY ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; WHETHER EVIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGATIONS IS DISCOVERABLE OR ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL IS NOT AFFECTED BY GRANTING THE MOTION TO STRIKE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to strike inflammatory allegations from the complaint should have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant asserting causes of action for defamation, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gender-motivated violence under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (Administrative Code of NYC § 10-111 et seq.).

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to strike certain inflammatory factual allegations from the first amended complaint. The allegations at issue, which employed rhetoric or detailed defendant’s misconduct toward other women and his relationships with notorious third parties, were scandalous and prejudicial, and not necessary to establish any element of plaintiff’s causes of action (see CPLR 3024 [b] …). CPLR 3024 (b) motions do not judge whether matters will be discoverable or admissible at trial … . Ganieva v Black, 2023 NY Slip Op 02380, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to strike inflammatory allegations from the complaint should have been granted. Granting such a motion has no effect on whether the related evidence is discoverable or admissible at trial.

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ON LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default on law-office-failure grounds should have been granted:

Plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for his default in failing to timely file his cross motion and opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he mistakenly believed that the papers could be filed at any time on the return date of December 15, 2021, and that the e-filing at 10:58 p.m. on that date was timely, despite the fact that the papers were, in fact, due to be filed two days before the return date. Thus, the default resulted from law office failure, which a court may excuse in its discretion (CPLR 2005 …). Moreover, there was no evidence that the default was deliberate or part of a pattern of dilatory conduct by plaintiff … .

Although plaintiff did fail to provide defendants with time to reply to his cross motion, thus causing prejudice to them, this error should have been remedied by granting defendants a brief adjournment, in view of the strong public policy of resolving cases on the merits, rather than by granting a default judgment … . The record also raises issues about defendants’ own conduct in connection with their motion, namely their submission of the motion for summary judgment just a few days before the court-imposed deadline for complying with a subpoena issued by plaintiff, and their failure to comply with an order directing production of responsive documents.

Furthermore, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim … . Giordano v Giordano, 2023 NY Slip Op 02381, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: Here law-office-failure was deemed an adequate ground for vacating the default judgment. Any prejudice caused by the late filing of motion papers could have been avoided by a brief adjournment.

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defense request for the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction should have been granted;

The court should have granted defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge. There was no direct evidence establishing defendant’s participation in the conspiracy … , and the People do not argue otherwise. The court’s standard instructions on reasonable doubt and inferences to be drawn from evidence did not suffice, because they did not make the jury aware of its duty to apply the circumstantial evidence standard to the People’s entire case and exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence … . The error was not harmless, because the circumstantial evidence of defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy was not overwhelming.

However, because the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, there is no basis for dismissal of the indictment. People v Garcia, 2023 NY Slip Op 02392, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The judge’s jury instruction did not make it clear the circumstantial evidence standard applied to the entire case. New trial ordered.

 

THE INDICTMENT DID NOT GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE PARTICULAR CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the indictment did not give sufficient notice of the particular crime with which defendant was charged:

The indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to charge defendant with committing a particular crime … . The indictment purported to charge defendant with persistent sexual abuse, a statute that elevates the repeated commission of any of three separately codified misdemeanors to a felony … , but it failed to “specify which of the three discrete qualifying offenses defendant was alleged to have committed” … . Hardware [200 AD3d 431] is dispositive of this appeal … . . In Hardware the indictment alleged that defendant had “subjected an individual to . . . sexual contact.” We held that this allegation was inadequate because ‘sexual contact’ is an element of all three of the qualifying offenses. Therefore, the indictment did not give defendant notice “with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant . . . of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation” (CPL 200.50[7][a] …). The only additional allegation in the indictment in this case is that defendant acted “without the [victim’s] consent.” That allegation similarly failed to specify the underlying crime, because the absence of consent is also an element shared by all three of the qualifying offenses. People v Lacy, 2023 NY Slip Op 02394, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: If it is not clear from the indictment exactly which of several possible crimes is charged, it must be dismissed.

 

, ,

THE NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY REFUSED TO ADD GENEALOGISTS TO THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO CAN ACCESS DEATH CERTIFICATES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Board of Health did not exceed the scope of its powers when it amended the NYC Health Code to add family members to the list of persons who can access death certificates but refused to add genealogists:

… New York City Board of Health did not “exceed[] the scope of its delegated powers” in amending 24 RCNY 207.11 … , by adding to the existing list of family members for whom requests for death certificates would automatically be deemed “necessary or required for a proper purpose” while declining to add genealogists … . Instead, it “balance[ed] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines” and did not create “its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance” … .  …

The stated goal of the proposal was to allow more family members access to death certificates, and the Board of Health reasonably expressed concern with family privacy issues, due to social security numbers and causes of death being listed on death certificates, when declining to add genealogists to the expanded list … .  Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2023 NY Slip Op 02395, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The NYC Board of Health did not exceed its administrative powers when it refused to add genealogists to the list of persons who can access death certificates.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Count, determined the defendant, TIA, could not seek indemnification for plaintiff’s damages from third-party defendant, Freeman, because plaintiff was Freeman’s special employee for whom Workers’ Compensation is the exclusive remedy:

Supreme Court should have dismissed TIA’s common-law indemnification and contribution claims on the ground that plaintiff was Freeman’s special employee when his accident occurred and therefore, the claims are precluded by the Workers’ Compensation Law. “A worker may be deemed a special employee where he or she is ‘transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another'” … . “While the mere transfer does not compel the conclusion that a special employment relationship exists, a court is most likely to find that it does where the transferee ‘controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … . Carey v Toy Indus. Assn. TM, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02280, First Dept 5-2-23

Practice Point: If plaintiff’s sole remedy against a party is Workers’ Compensation, a defendant cannot seek indemnification from that party. Here plaintiff was the third-party defendant’s special employee so defendant could not seek indemnification from the third-party defendant.

 

, ,

IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the plaintiff, a New Jersey casino (Golden Nugget), was not entitled to summary judgment this action seeking to recover defendant’s (Chan’s) $200,000 gambling debt. Defendant had raised affirmative defenses based upon complaints alleging the dice used by the casino violated the Casino Control Act (CCA) which defendant filed with the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE). The Casino Control Commission has primary jurisdiction over those complaints. Therefore the complaints must be ruled upon before summary judgment can be considered by the court:

Supreme Court’s granting of summary judgment to plaintiff was premature. The motion court should instead have deferred any decision until receipt of DGE’s ruling on Chan’s “patron complaint” based on the same violations, since that grievance was filed prior to the commencement of plaintiff’s litigation and remained pending at the time of its decision. While DGE has ruled that the same scribing violations against another casino do not violate the CCA, there has been no ruling by DGE in any matter concerning defendant’s allegations of “non-transparent dice.” Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied, with leave to renew upon a ruling by DGE on the “patron complaint,” or after six months if DGE has failed to resolve this issue despite sufficient notice to DGE by the parties … . Golden Nugget Atl. City LLC v Chan, 2023 NY Slip Op 02176, First Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: Here a New Jersey sued defendant to recover a $200,000 gambling debt. Defendant raised violations of New Jersey’s Casino Control Act as affirmative defenses. Because New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission has primary jurisdiction over those complaints, they must be ruled on before the court can consider the casino’s summary judgment motion.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED; HER TESTIMONY ABOUT HER ALLEGED CONDUCT AT THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) WOULD HAVE BEEN CUMULATIVE AND DEFENDANTS COULD NOT SHOW THE IME WAS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s counsel should not have been disqualification based upon her alleged interference with the independent medical examination (IME). Defendants did not demonstrate counsel’s testimony concerning the IME was necessary, given the plaintiff’s and physician’s ability to testify:

… [D]isqualification is required “only where the testimony by the attorney is considered necessary and prejudicial to plaintiffs’ interests” … .

… Although defendants maintain that they have a right to call plaintiff’s counsel as a witness based on the knowledge she obtained at the IME, and therefore her disqualification under Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 3.7 is required, defendants have not established that counsel’s testimony would be necessary to their defense and not cumulative of the testimony that could be provided by the examining physician and plaintiff herself … .

The examining physician completed a “meaningful examination” of plaintiff at the IME, reflected by the IME report in which he was able to opine with a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to the genesis of plaintiff’s symptoms, and defendants have not established that they were prejudiced by the contents of the report based on counsel’s alleged intrusions … . To the extent that further information is required to prepare a defense, the remedy is not disqualification of opposing counsel but rather to permit defendants to seek further discovery to obtain that information … . Domingo v 541 Operating Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02175, First Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: Defendants alleged plaintiff’s counsel’s behavior during the independent medical examination (IME) required her disqualification because defendants needed to call her as a witness to IME proceedings. The First Department held that counsel’s testimony about the IME was not necessary (cumulative to plaintiff’s and the physician’s testimony) and defendants did not show any prejudice stemming from counsel’s alleged conduct. Therefore plaintiff’s counsel and her firm should not have been disqualified.

 

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