You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED THEIR PURPOSE (ARREST WARRANT) BEFORE ENTERING THE APARTMENT; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suppression motion should have been granted because there was no evidence the police announced their purpose (arrest warrant) before entering the apartment:

The hearing evidence supports findings as follows: The police executing the arrest warrant knocked and heard movement in the apartment but received no response, they announced that they were police and again received no response, and they then entered the apartment after finding that the door was unlocked. Only after opening the door, and after entering the apartment, a detective announced, “NYPD arrest warrant.” There was no evidence that in any way suggests that the police, before entering the apartment, attempted to satisfy the statutory requirement of giving “notice” of their “purpose” (CPL 120.80[4] …). Accordingly, the court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence at issue. People v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 01262. First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: The did not comply with the statutory requirement that they announce their purpose, here the execution of an arrest warrant, before entering the apartment. The motion to suppress should have been granted.

 

, ,

A CORPORATION (HERE A COOPERATIVE) DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS; THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS MAY OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS BUT NO ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY BOARD MEMBERS WERE MADE (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a corporation (or, in this case a cooperative) does not owe a fiduciary duty to its shareholders:

… [T]he second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty as against the cooperative and the board member defendants also does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The cause of action cannot be sustained as against the cooperative “because a corporation owes no fiduciary duty to its shareholders” … . Furthermore, even assuming that the cause of action was addressed to the actions taken by the individual board member defendants, it “does not allege any individual wrongdoing by the members of the board separate and apart from their collective actions” taken in their capacity as board members … . Tahari v 860 Fifth Ave. Corp, 2023 NY Slip Op 01269, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: A corporation does not owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Individual board members may owe a duty which would be breached by wrongdoing, not alleged here.

 

,

INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S TWO-YEAR-OLD FIREARM CONVICTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT DEFENDANT “OPENED THE DOOR” WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD NOT QUESTIONED THE PROPRIETY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT OR THE OFFICER’S CONCLUSION THE BULGE IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET WAS A FIREARM; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE TWO-STEP MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People’s introduction of evidence of defendant’s two-year-old possession of a weapon conviction was not justified under the Molineux criteria. A police officer, Lafemina, who was aware of defendant’s prior firearm conviction and a parole warrant for defendant’s arrest, saw a bulge in defendant’s pocket which Lafemina thought could have been a firearm. The defendant ran when approached by Lafemina and, during the chase, entered and exited two buildings. Because Lafemina radioed that defendant may be armed, more that 100 officers responded to the chase. Defendant was charged with burglary based upon the building-entries. No firearm was recovered:

… [O]n the erroneous theory that defendant opened the door, the trial court admitted evidence that defendant was previously convicted of second-degree attempted criminal possession of a weapon ostensibly to explain Lafemina’s actions on the day defendant was arrested. We find this was improper. The trial court should have, but failed to follow the necessary two-step Molineux test: first, determine whether the evidence is relevant to a material issue, and then, if so, whether its probative value outweighs any potential prejudice to defendant. Instead, the court improperly relied on Santana [16 AD3d 346], which does not apply here because defendant never opened the door. …

The court erred by granting the People’s application before defendant raised any issues as to the propriety of the officers’ conduct or as to the accuracy of Lafemina’s belief that defendant was armed … . People v Woody, 2023 NY Slip Op 01263, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: Evidence of a prior conviction can be admitted if the defense “opens the door” to such evidence, even if the evidence would not be admissible under a Molineux analysis. Here the two-year-old firearm conviction was not admissible under Molineux and the defense did not “open the door” by questioning the propriety of the police conduct of the officer’s conclusion the bulge in defendant’s pocket indicated defendant was armed.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT COMMITTED A HEINOUS SECOND DEGREE MURDER, THE PROOF OF THE STATUTORY ELEMENTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s first degree murder conviction, determined that, although defendant committed a heinous murder, the statutory criteria for first degree murder were not met:

… [T]he evidence was legally insufficient to prove that defendant inflicted torture on the victim within the meaning of the statute in two respects. First, we conclude that defendant did not engage in a “course of conduct” with the intention of inflicting “extreme physical pain” on the victim. Extreme physical pain cannot be defined precisely. However, it cannot be reasonably doubted that the fatal blow to the victim’s neck caused extreme pain. Yet, that blow was a single act rather than a course of conduct. Thus, we find that defendant and his accomplices did not engage in a “course of conduct” involving the intentional infliction of extreme physical pain. Accordingly, the conduct at issue here does not satisfy the statutory definition of torture in that respect.

… [T]he record also fails to support the conclusion that defendant “relished” or “evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain.” In arguing to the contrary, the People point out that, after the homicide, defendant twice told other gang members that he had “hit [the victim] in the neck,” in a tone that the listener considered boastful. This did not meet the statutory standard. In our view, the statute contemplates evidence that the defendant savored the infliction of extreme pain in the process of inflicting the pain, and for its own sake. The record does not indicate that this occurred here … . People v Estrella, 2023 NY Slip Op 01240, First Dept 3-9-23

Practice Point: Here the evidence of two elements of first degree murder, torture and “relishing” the infliction of pain, were not proven. Therefore the first degree murder conviction was vacated.

 

,

A VIDEO CAMERA HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN A GRAPEFRUIT-SIZED HOLE BEHIND A TOILET IN A WOMEN’S RESTROOM AND VIDEO HAD BEEN RECOVERED; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THAT “EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT” IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND THAT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined “extreme and outrageous conduct” is not an essential element of negligent (as opposed to intentional) infliction of emotional distress. Here there was a hole in the wall behind a toilet in the women’s restroom. There was a video camera in the hole and video had been recovered.. Complaints about the hole in the wall had been made. Supreme Court properly upheld the negligence cause of action, but dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action:

Although it has been recognized that there may be recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the elements necessary for recovery has developed through case law. This Department’s case law has held that both intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress require a showing of extreme and outrageous conduct.

… There is no stated rationale as to why extreme and outrageous conduct would be a required element for both an intentional act as well as a negligent act.

As such, we now hold that extreme and outrageous conduct is not an essential element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

This holding is in line with recent decisions of the Second, Third and Fourth Departments. Brown v New York Design Ctr., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01228, First Dept 3-9-23

Practice Point: All four appellate division departments have now held “extreme and outrageous conduct” is not an element of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

 

, ,

THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF COLLATERAL TO THE MAJORITY LENDERS WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE MINORITY LENDERS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS IN THIS PRIVATE FORECLOSURE; THE MINORITY LENDERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the breach of contract claims by the minority lenders against the majority lenders and a collateral agent should not have been dismissed. Collateral was sold to the majority lenders but the proceeds were not distributed to the minority lenders in the manner required by the credit and security agreements. The opinion is fact-specific and far too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he pro rata sharing provisions required that all minority lenders receive pro rata treatment of their debt obligations, which meant that the proceeds of the sale of the collateral (notes and equity) should have been distributed to all secured lenders pro rata in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement. … While the Collateral Agent, as directed by the majority lenders, was authorized to define the terms, conditions, and limitations of how the restructuring sale should be carried out, the reorganization had to be for the pro rata benefit of all those holders of secured debt, including minority lenders. Thus, the minority lenders have the right to object to the restructure sale conducted through credit bidding based upon the failure to provide them adequate protection of their pro rata interest on the foreclosed collateral. AEA Middle Mkt. Debt Funding LLC v Marblegate Asset Mgt., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01157, First Dept 3-7-23

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion concerns a private foreclosure of collateral and the distribution of the proceeds to the majority and minority lenders pursuant to complex credit and security agreements.

 

,

THE HANDWRITTEN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED CONTRACT IS PRESUMED TO EXPRESS THE LATEST INTENTION OF THE PARTIES; HERE THE ENTRY CREATED AMBIGUITY IN THE “NO DAMAGES FOR DELAY” CLAUSE REQUIRING DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a handwritten entry in a printed contract is presumed to express the latest intention of the parties and created ambiguity requiring discovery:

The subcontractor agreement between plaintiff and defendant JDS Construction Group LLC contains clauses precluding damages for delay. It also provides that if plaintiff’s work was “delayed or disrupted by fault of [JDS], Architect, or any other contractor, or by abnormal weather conditions, then the time fixed for the completion of the Work shall be extended for a period equivalent to the time actually lost, in the discretion of [JDS] and compensated for additional, mutually agreed to costs,” with the words in italics handwritten onto the typed agreement.

… [A] handwritten provision that conflicts with the language of the preprinted form document will control, “as it is presumed to express the latest intention of the parties” … . The handwritten amendment to the no-damages-for-delay clause renders the clause ambiguous as to whether plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for costs incurred as a result of such delays, which requires discovery to discern the parties’ intent … . Henick-Lane, Inc. v 616 First Ave. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01163, First Dept 3-7-23

Practice Point: A handwritten entry in a printed contract is presumed to reflect the latest intention of the parties.

 

,

IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT STOPPED SHORT DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end traffic accident case, determined the allegation that the car in front stopped short did not raise a question of fact and summary judgment should have been awarded to driver/owner of the car in front:

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured in a two-car collision while he was a passenger in a car driven by Morera and owned by Giovanni. According to plaintiff, defendant Dan Espeut, who was driving behind the Morera defendants’ car, rear-ended the Morera defendants’ car.

It is well-settled law that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence by the driver of the rear vehicle, and imposes a duty on the driver of the rear vehicle to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . Here, the Morera defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting Morera’s affidavit, in which he averred that he was driving straight and gradually applying his brakes because there was traffic ahead of him, and that as he was doing so, the Espeut vehicle rear-ended his vehicle … .

… Espeut’s affidavit, in which he averred that Morera stopped short in front of him after entering his lane of traffic, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact … . Moreover, Espeut had the obligation to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles, which, as the record evidence makes clear, he failed to do … . Obando v Espeut, 2023 NY Slip Op 01144, First Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, the allegation by the driver of the rear-most car that the car in front stopped short is not a non-negligent explanation for the accident.

 

,

EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON ALCOHOL USE WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BASIS WAS OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS OF THE CHILD WHICH WERE NOT CORROBORATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the evidence of father’s neglect based upon alcohol use was insufficient:

… [A] preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of neglect based on the father’s alcohol use or on any prior incidents of domestic abuse, as those findings were based on out-of-court statements of the child that were not sufficiently corroborated by any other evidence. Matter of Kaylee S. (Kyle L. S.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01150, First Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: A neglect finding based upon uncorroborated out-of-court statements by a child is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND TO CHANGE VENUE; THE 15-DAY TIME-LIMIT IS STRICTLY ENFORCED AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 511(b) was made more than 15 days after their demand to change venue and was therefore untimely:

Supreme Court should have denied defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County because it was untimely made. Defendants have a reasonable excuse for their failure to make a timely demand to change venue. They learned of plaintiff’s Westchester address on April 5, 2022, when they received plaintiff’s medical authorizations and a copy of the Aided report, and made a prompt demand to change venue the day after, on April 6, 2022 … . However, pursuant to CPLR 511(b), defendants had until April 21, 2022, 15 days after service of their demand, to make the motion. Defendants’ motion made on April 26, 2022, 20 days after the demand, is untimely and should have been denied. Defendant did not move within the strict time limits provided by the statute and failed to offer any explanation for the delay … . Gomez v Cypser, 2023 NY Slip Op 01060, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Once defendant makes a demand to change venue, defendant has 15 days to make a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 511(b). The 15-day time-limit is strictly enforced. Here the motion was made 20 days after the demand and Supreme Court should not have granted it.

 

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