You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT WHICH ECUADORIAN STATUTE IS MOST CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO NEW YORK’S FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CRITERIA FOR PURPOSES OF NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE; HERE THE ACTION ACCRUED IN ECUADOR; THE SHORTER OF THE APPLICABLE ECUADORIAN AND NEW YORK STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter for consideration of the expert evidence, determined Supreme Court may have applied the wrong Ecuadorian statute in the analysis of the statute of limitations under the borrowing statute:

Under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” where a nonresident plaintiff sues on causes of action that accrued outside of New York, the claims must be timely under the limitations period of both New York and the jurisdiction where the action accrued … . In effect, the shorter of the two states’ statutes of limitations controls the timeliness of the action … . …

If the foreign state does not have causes of action directly analogous to the New York causes of action, the limitations period of the foreign causes of action that are most closely analogous to the New York claims are to be applied … . …

In performing the foregoing analysis, the motion court found applicable Ecuador’s default statute, which has a 10-year statute of limitations, and thereby found plaintiff’s claims timely filed, despite the expert testimony establishing that Ecuador’s default statute is not directly applicable to plaintiff’s fraudulent conveyance claims and not the Ecuadorian cause of action most closely analogous to the New York causes of action. Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v Occidental Petroleum Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 00481, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: Here the fraudulent conveyance action accrued in Ecuador. Under the borrowing statute the shorter of the New York and Ecuadorian statutes of limitations applies. Where, as here, there is no foreign statute exactly analogous to the New York cause of action, expert evidence about which foreign statute is most analogous should be considered.

 

, , ,

THE CORRECTION LAW REQUIRING A SEX OFFENDER TO VERIFY HIS OR HER ADDRESS EVERY NINETY DAYS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AS APPLIED TO HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the Correction-Law requirement that a sex offender verify his or her address every 90 days is void for vagueness as applied to homeless sex offenders:

… [T]he question is whether the reporting requirements of Correction Law § 168-f(3) provided sufficient notice to defendant of what conduct was mandated by the statute when he left his previous residence address, a homeless shelter, but possessed no new permanent or temporary residence with an address. According to its plain language, Correction Law § 168-f(3) mandates that offenders register a change of residence by providing a specific new “address.” The statute, however, contains no objective standard or guidelines that would put homeless sex offenders without an address on notice of what conduct is required of them. Under these circumstances, such transient offenders can only guess at what is meant by the requirement that they register their new “address.” Similarly, the change of address reporting requirement fails to provide even minimal guidelines for the registering authorities in these regards, thus encouraging arbitrary enforcement. People v Allen, 2023 NY Slip Op 00496, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: The Correction Law requiring a sex offender to verify his or her address every ninety days is void for vagueness as applied to homeless sex offenders.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL MOVED TO SUPPRESS AN UNNOTICED EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AFTER BEING TOLD THE IDENTIFICATION WOULD BE PRECLUDED IF HE DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS; DEFENSE COUNSEL INTRODUCED DEFENDANT’S MUG SHOT DESPITE THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PHOTO ID; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO A DETECTIVE’S IMPROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN A BLURRY VIDEO; THE MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defense counsel moved to suppress an unnoticed eyewitness identification knowing that the evidence would have been precluded had he not moved to suppress. Defense counsel introduced the mug shot of the defendant, despite the suppression of the photo identification. Defense counsel did not object to the improper identification of the defendant in a blurry video by a detective:

The record does not support the hearing court’s determination that counsel’s waiver of preclusion of the unnoticed identification made by the sole eyewitness to the shooting was a legitimate trial strategy … . … [T]rial counsel initially did not appreciate that by moving to suppress the identification, he waived preclusion of the unnoticed identification under CPL 710.30(3). …

… [A]lthough the suppression hearing court had suppressed this witness’s photo identification of defendant, counsel nevertheless introduced at trial the mug shot shown to the witness. …

… [T]rial counsel did not object to a detective’s improper identification of defendant in a blurry video … . People v McCray, 2023 NY Slip Op 00502, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: If the People do not provide timely notice of an identification of the defendant, the evidence will be precluded. If however a motion to suppress the identification is made, it will not be precluded. Here making the motion to suppress was deemed ineffective assistance.

Practice Point: Counsel was ineffective for introducing the mug shot of the defendant after the photo identification had been suppressed.

Practice Point: Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a detective’s improper identification of the defendant in a blurry video.

 

, ,

THE ACTION BY PLAINTIFF SELLER TO RECOVER ON A SECURITY INTEREST IN COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN TAKEN OUT BY THE BUYER AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE BARRED BY THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT WHICH ASSIGNED PRIORITY TO TWO OTHER SECURITY INTERESTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the language of a so-called standstill provision barred the action by plaintiff Intrepid seeking to recover a security interest in collateral for the $28.7 million loan taken out by the buyer, Selling Source, as consideration for the purchase. Plaintiff was a third priority lender and the standstill agreement provided plaintiff could not seek a remedy until payment was made to the first and second priority lenders:

… Selling Source agreed to acquire a number of Internet businesses from plaintiff Intrepid. In partial consideration, Selling Source executed a $28.7 million junior secured promissory note … . …

In connection with the transaction, the parties executed an intercreditor and subordination agreement (ICA) delineating the priority of each party’s security interest in the collateral pledged by the guarantors. Plaintiff, as the “third priority representative” of the “third priority lenders,” received third priority liens as security for the repayment of the $28.7 million note … .

The ICA contains standstill provisions that circumscribe Intrepid’s ability to exercise its remedies in the event of a default by Selling Source, providing, inter alia, that “[n]o Third Priority Lender shall commence or exercise any Remedies in respect of any default or event of default. . . until such time as the Payment-in-Full of the First Priority Obligations and Second Priority Obligations” … . * * *

This action is barred by the plain language of the standstill provision, which states that “[n]o Third Priority Lender shall commence or exercise any Remedies in respect of any default or event of default . . . until such time as the Payment-in-Full of the First Priority Obligations and Second Priority Obligations” … . Intrepid Invs., LLC v Selling Source, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00396, First Dept 1-31-23

Practice Point: Here priority was assigned to those holding security interests in collateral for a loan taken out by the buyer as consideration for the purchase. The plaintiff seller was a third priority lender. The seller’s action to recover on its security interest was barred by standstill agreement which did not allow the seller to seek a remedy until the payment of the first and second priority lenders.

 

 

,

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURED VALVES CONTAINING ASBESTOS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD A SMALL OFFICE IN NYC THE VALVES WERE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, WHERE PLAINTIFF LIVED AND WORKED; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR NEW YORK JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s asbestos exposure action. Although the defendant manufacturer of valves containing asbestos had a small office in New York, defendant demonstrated that all the activity which related to the manufacture, sale and use of the valves took place in Connecticut. Plaintiff lived and worked exclusively in Connecticut as well:

… [T]here was no record evidence suggesting that defendant’s minimal activity in New York had an articulable nexus to plaintiff’s injury. … … [In addition] plaintiff did not offer a sufficient basis to justify jurisdictional discovery … . To the extent that defendant operated an executive and sales office out of the 100 Park Avenue office, this limited activity was not substantially related to plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos while working with and around defendant’s valves in Connecticut and plaintiff does not identify any other activity by defendant in New York that could provide a sufficient nexus to his injury. Instead, all conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in Connecticut, as he was not a New York resident, did not purchase or work with defendant’s valves in New York, and does not claim to have suffered harm in this State … . Without an adequate relationship between New York and plaintiff’s claims, “specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State” … . Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 2023 NY Slip Op 00402, First Dept 1-31-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos in valves made by defendant caused his cancer. The valves were manufactured and sold in Connecticut where plaintiff lived and worked. Defendant’s small office in New York was not sufficiently connected with plaintiff’s claims to support New York jurisdiction.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE CORPORATION DID HAVE AN OFFICE, VENUE WAS APPROPRIATELY PLACED IN NEW YORK COUNTY BASED ON DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change venue in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Even though the accident didn’t occur in New York County and defendant corporation did not have an office in New York County, the certificate of incorporation designated New York County as the location of its principal office and the certificate controls:

Plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon the corporate defendant’s initial certificate of incorporation designating New York County as the location of its principal office although the company has no office there (see CPLR 503 [c] …).

While defendants annexed to their moving papers the police report for the subject motor vehicle accident indicating that defendants’ vehicle was registered to a Nassau County address on the day of the accident and an affidavit from the corporate defendant’s Vice President averring that its office was in Nassau County when the action was commenced, the corporate residence designated in the initial certificate of incorporation controls for venue purposes … . There was no evidence of an amended certificate of incorporation that changed the principal place of business to Nassau County.

The general rule is that a transitory action, such as the subject motor vehicle accident, when other things are equal, should be tried in the county where the cause of action arose … . This rule, however, is predicated on the convenience of material nonparty witnesses who are to be present at trial … . While the situs of the accident provides a basis to change venue to Nassau County, defendants failed to sustain their burden, as the party moving for a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), that there are material witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County … . Marte v Lampert, 2023 NY Slip Op 00375, First Dept 1-26-23

Practice Point: Here the traffic accident happened in Nassau County where defendant corporation had an office. But defendant’s certificate of incorporation indicated defendant’s principal office was in New York County. The certificate controls, even though the defendant corporation did not actually have an office in New York County.

 

A HEAVY DOOR FELL ON PLAINTIFF’S HAND AS HE AND A CO-WORKER ATTEMPTED TO LIFT THE DOOR ONTO A TRUCK; NO LIFTING DEVICES WERE AVAILABLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury to his hand when a heavy door fell as plaintiff attempted to lift the door onto a truck warranted summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. There was evidence no hoists or other lifting devices were available:

Plaintiff testified that there were no hoists, forklifts, or other lifting devices on the work site, and that the door fell because it was too heavy for him and his coworkers to hold up without such a device. Plaintiff further testified that he knew that the door weighed about 300 pounds because he could lift 100 pounds by himself, but that he and his coworker were unable to lift it together.

The affidavit of his employer’s foreman, who admittedly did not witness the accident, did not dispute most of the facts relevant to plaintiff’s claim. The foreman’s affidavit failed to raise a question of fact as to the door’s weight, since he did not provide any basis for his bare claim that the door weighed about 100-120 pounds and could easily be lifted by two workers without the use of a hoist or forklift. Furthermore, the precise weight of the door, whether it fell from a height of 7 feet or 3 ½ feet, or whether a dolly was being used when it fell are not material in this case. It is undisputed that no lifting devices contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) were available at the job site and that plaintiff’s injuries flow “directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … . Taopanta v 1211 6th Ave. Prop. Owner, LLC., 2023 NY Slip Op 00385, First Dept 1-26-23

Practice Point: Although the weight of the door which fell onto plaintiff’s hand as he tried to lift the door onto a truck was disputed (300 versus 100-120), it was undisputed that no lifting devices were available. Plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

PLAINTIFF STRUCK HIS HEAD AS HE FELL AND WAS INJURED BY THE ABRUPT STOP OF HIS FALL BY THE SAFETY HARNESS AND LANYARD; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff had a safety harness and a retractable lanyard which were tied off when he fell. Although the harness and lanyard prevented him from hitting the floor, he hit his head as he fell and was injured by the abrupt stop of his fall (by the harness and lanyard):

The record establishes that the safety devices “proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity” … . The fact that plaintiff sustained injuries to his right shoulder and back when his body was caused to be pulled back up abruptly by his safety harness and lanyard demonstrates lack of adequate protection … . Arias v 139 E. 56th St. Landlord, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00261, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was provided with a safety harness and a lanyard which were tied off, he struck his head when fell and was injured by the abrupt stop of his fall by the harness and lanyard. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

DEFENDANT SUPERMARKET DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE GRAPES ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant supermarket’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted; Defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the grapes on the floor because it presented no specific evidence of when the area had last been inspected or cleaned prior to the fall:

While defendant showed that it did not create or have actual notice of loose grapes in the produce aisle at the time of plaintiff’s accident, defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence to show, as a matter of law, that it lacked constructive notice of the condition. Specifically, defendant failed to show that its cleaning routine was followed on the day of the accident … . Its store manager testified generally that an employee was assigned to inspect and clean the produce aisle throughout the day and that he personally walked the aisles during the day, but he did not testify regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question on the day of plaintiff’s fall. A vice president testified that the cleaning protocols were verbal and were based on “common sense,” but did not offer any information as to what steps were taken during the last cleaning cycle prior to plaintiff’s accident, which also was not sufficient to establish lack of constructive notice on behalf of defendant. Accordingly, the burden did not shift to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Polanco v 756 Jomo Food Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00284, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case the defendant must demonstrate a lack of constructive notice by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) VOTING AGREEMENT CONCERNED THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE-OF-FRAUDS PROHIBITION OF ORAL AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the counterclaim adequately alleged breach of contract. The contract was an LLC voting agreement which was not subject to the statute of frauds even though the agreement authorized the sale of real property:

Supreme Court should not have dismissed defendants’ counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance, which it properly construed as a single claim for breach of contract seeking specific performance and monetary relief. The alleged agreement at issue was not an unenforceable oral contract for the sale of real property, as it did not provide for the sale or transfer of real property or any party’s interest in real property (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[2]). Instead, giving defendants’ allegations every favorable inference, defendants sufficiently pled that the oral agreement was effectively an LLC voting agreement under which plaintiff agreed to vote her membership interest in favor of defendants’ sale of their membership interests or a sale of the property. Tsai v Lo, 2023 NY Slip Op 00291, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: Although the voting agreement concerned the sale of real property by the limited liability company, it was not subject to the statute-of-frauds prohibition of oral agreements.

 

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