You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined New York had jurisdiction over the defendant JUUL, the manufacture of electronic cigarettes, and two corporate officers involved JUUL’s marketing campaign in New York. The complaint alleged “causes of action pursuant to General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for deceptive acts and practices and for false advertising, respectively; pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), for repeated and persistent fraud and illegal conduct in violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC § 45); and, for public nuisance.”:

… [T]he People submitted internal emails and reports demonstrating … that defendants traveled to New York City for investment meetings … ; that defendants personally attended JUUL’s launch party in New York City …, JUUL also sought to arrange in-person meetings between defendants and both “New York targets” and broadcast media organizations; and, that defendants and JUUL considered the New York City launch to have been a success.

… [D]efendants were involved in marketing strategy, which included … months of events in New York; identifying New York as the target of JUUL’s northeastern U.S. marketing efforts, at and after launch; advertising on billboards in Times Square; hosting in-store product samplings at New York vape shops and social events; and escalating marketing efforts in the New York City metropolitan area post-launch. After New York proved to be a substantial market for JUUL’s product, defendants went so far as to describe the efforts as “NYC takeover” and to declare that New York City users should be “the focus of [JUUL’s] branding/marketing.”

This evidence establishes that defendants conducted sufficient in-person activities within New York State related to the People’s claims against them in this action, and sufficiently supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . People v JUUL Labs, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00040, First Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: Here New York demonstrated it had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state manufacturer of electronic cigarettes and two corporate officers involved in marketing the cigarettes in New York. The complaint alleged deceptive business practices, fraud and public nuisance.

 

, ,

TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A) THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PATTERN OF NEGLECT, NOT, AS HERE, A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL); THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that dismissal for failure to prosecute requires more than one instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready to proceed on the trial date). Rather, a pattern of neglect must be shown in order to deprive plaintiff of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a):

While the prior action was dismissed due to plaintiff’s unreadiness to go forward with the trial as scheduled on December 16, 2022 … , the … trial court, in dismissing the case, did not set forth on the record any additional instances of neglect by the plaintiff that could “demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” (CPLR 205[a] …), as opposed to one particular lapse, namely, the lack of readiness on the trial date. The court’s statement that the case had been “languishing since 2010” does not suffice, inasmuch as it fails to specify any “specific conduct . . . demonstrat[ing] a general pattern of delay” (CPLR 205[a] …). As this Court has recently held, a “general pattern of delay” must comprise more than one instance of dilatory conduct … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Fox, 2023 NY Slip Op 00046, First Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff will not be deprived of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a) unless there has been more than a single instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready for trial). In addition, the judge must, in the order dismissing the action, set forth the facts demonstrating a pattern of neglect before the plaintiff will be prohibited from recommencing the action.

 

,

THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT LIABILITY ON A PIERCING-THE-CORPORATE-VEIL THEORY AND THE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL SOMETHING WAS NOT A BASIS FOR DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to hold defendant MMC liable on a piercing-the-corporate veil theory in this medical malpractice case:

… [T]he complaint does not contain allegations sufficient to support holding MMC liable on a theory of piercing the corporate veil, since it does not allege facts supporting a finding that MMC completely dominated and controlled Nyack Hospital or abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form (CPLR 3211[a][7] … ). Moreover, the lack of discovery does not excuse plaintiff’s failure to plead any facts that would support piercing the corporate veil …, and the hope that something will turn up in discovery is an insufficient basis to deny the motion to dismiss … . Yovich v Montefiore Nyack Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00047, First Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: If a complaint doesn’t allege facts demonstrating complete domination and control or abuse of the privilege of doing business in the corporate form the cause of action relying on the piercing-the-corporate-veil theory will be dismissed. The hope that discovery will reveal something relevant is not enough to prevent dismissal.

 

,

THE NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM (PART 2 OF THE NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT OF 1986), WHICH LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A PHYSICIAN WHO ADMINISTERS A VACCINE TO $1000, DOES NOT APPLY TO PHYSICIANS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY TREAT A VACCINATED PERSON FOR A VACCINE-RELATED CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (VICP or NCVIA) (42 USC § 300aa-10 et seq.), which limits the liability of a physician who administers a vaccine to $1000, applies only to those who actually administer the vaccine and not to those who subsequently treat the vaccinated person for medical problems that may be linked to the vaccine:

On April 14, 2006, defendant Gargi Gandhi, M.D. administered two vaccines to infant plaintiff Diksha Batish, then age 13. Plaintiff’s condition subsequently deteriorated. Two weeks after vaccination, plaintiff received care from defendant Drs. Imundo and Pascual. Several months later, in September 2006, plaintiff first sought treatment from Dr. Spiro. There is no dispute that only Dr. Gandhi administered the vaccines. * * *

Here, none of the moving defendants administered the vaccine. Neither … did they treat plaintiff for conditions allegedly exacerbated by subsequent vaccinations. They only provided post-vaccination care. Thus, the moving defendants cannot be considered vaccine administrators under the VICP. Since the moving defendants are not vaccine administrators, the VICP is inapplicable, and any toll authorized by the VICP is also inapplicable (see 42 USC § 300aa-16[c]). Batish v Gandhi 2022 NY Slip Op 07494, First Dept 12-29-22

Practice Point: The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (VICP or NCVIA) (42 USC § 300aa-10 et seq.) limits the liability of a physician who administers a vaccine to $1000.

 

,

WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IS A FACT-BASED DETERMINATION GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FINDINGS BY THE MOTION COURT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWING THE CORPORTE VEIL TO BE PIERCED REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should not have granted summary judgment allowing the corporate veil to be pierced and holding the defendants liable for a judgment against the corporation (DJJMS). The appellate division noted that a determination the corporate veil should be pierced is a fact-based analysis not suited to summary judgment:

The elements of veil piercing are that (1) the owners exercised complete domination and control of the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff’s injury … . Plaintiffs who seek to pierce the corporate veil bear a heavy burden … .

“[C]omplete domination of the corporation is the key to piercing the corporate veil” … , but the motion court did not cite sufficient, undisputed facts to show that defendants exercised complete domination of DJJMS. It noted that veil piercing occurs “when the principals are using the corporation ‘as their personal piggy-bank'” but cited no facts to support its apparent determination that defendants so used DJJMS … . The motion court did not adequately detail relevant, undisputed facts to show that defendants have “abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form,” including facts showing that, as a matter of law “there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . … The motion court apparently presumed that the transfer at issue …  caused DJJMS to be judgment proof, but the court does not cite any undisputed fact, other than the fact of the transfer itself, to support its conclusion. Etage Real Estate LLC v Stern, 2022 NY Slip Op 07499, First Dept 12-29-22

Practice Point: Whether the corporate veil should be pierced is a fact-laden inquiry which is not suited for summary judgment.

 

THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE CONTRACT RENDERED A CRUCIAL SENTENCE AMBIGUOUS; THE ERROR COULD NOT BE CORRECTED WITHOUT POSSIBLY ALTERING THE PARTIES’ INTENT; THEREFORE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO INTERPRET THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined there was a typographical error in the sentence describing the effective date of the contract which rendered the contract ambiguous. The dissent argued the intended meaning of the sentence was clear and the error should be corrected by the court: The effective date of the contract was crucial to a determination whether the contract was enforceable or had expired:

… [W]e are not ascribing one interpretation over the other. Rather, we are pointing out the multiple reasonable interpretations and concluding that additional information is necessary to ascertain the proper interpretation (see Castellano v State of New York, 43 NY2d 909 [1978]). In Castellano, when faced with a word in a lease clause that was grammatically inconsistent with the rest of the lease, the Court considered the different ways the parties proposed to change the clause to render it grammatically correct, both of which were reasonable. Each required altering a word in the lease. Rather than choosing one alteration over another, the Court found that there should be an exploration to ascertain the proper interpretation. …

… [T]hese are not “inadvertent errors,” or a “mistake” that can be corrected without altering the intent of the parties … . While “mistakes in grammar, spelling or punctuation should not be permitted to alter, contravene or vitiate manifest intention of the parties as gathered from the language employed” … , the [contract language] cannot be rendered grammatically correct without possibly altering the parties’ intent. “[T]he question of whether an ambiguity exists must be ascertained from the face of an agreement without regard to extrinsic evidence” … . Here, the … language is literally unclear and ambiguous and must be interpreted in light of extrinsic evidence. Mak Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd., 2022 NY Slip Op 07507, First Dept 12-29-22

Practice Point: Although a court can correct an obvious typographical error in a contract, here the majority concluded there was more than one way to make the language grammatically correct, rendering the contract ambiguous. Extrinsic evidence was therefore necessary to interpret the contract.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this stairway slip and fall case was an out-of-possession landlord who was not responsible for maintenance of the stairway treads:

Article 7(A)(i) of the lease imposed on Cava [the tenant] the obligation to maintain and repair the nonstructural portions of the demised premises … . The testimonial evidence established that Cava, consistent with its obligations under the lease, assumed responsibility over the subject staircase … . Although the lease granted defendants the right to re-enter to make repairs, the stairway condition was not a significant structural or design defect that was contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … . Kamara v 323 Pas Owner LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07296, First Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The tenant, pursuant to the lease, had assumed responsibility for maintenance of the stairway where plaintiff fell. The defendant out-of-possession landlord was entitled to summary judgment.

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE; AND AN APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER ARGUMENTS ON ISSUES NOT RULED ON BELOW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid, the motion to suppress should not have been denied on a ground not raised by the parties, and the appellate court cannot rule on issues not decided below:

… [T]he court conflated defendant’s appellate and trial rights by asking the defendant “[i]s that what you wish to do to waive your right to appeal and your other rights . . . by pleading guilty[?]” Instead, the majority of the court’s colloquy of defendant’s appellate rights focused on sentencing, on which the court itself needed clarification, not in differentiating trial from appellate rights.

… [T]he court made other errors in its oral colloquy that further justify invalidating defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights. Specifically, the court failed to advise defendant of the nature of the right to appeal … , erroneously mischaracterized the finality of the waiver … , and failed to discuss the written waiver form with defendant … . The detailed written waiver that defendant executed with counsel cannot save the numerous errors in the court’s oral colloquy, as “‘a written waiver is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal'” … . * * *

… [A]bsent “on-the-record acknowledgements of [defendant’s clear] understanding” … of his appellate rights waiver, the presumption of defense counsel’s competent representation during the plea negotiations is simply insufficient to overcome the court’s deficient colloquy … . * * *

… [T]he People never disputed that defendant had standing to challenge the search warrant. Therefore, the court should not have denied the motion “based on a ground not raised by the People” … . … [T]he People’s current arguments on appeal are precluded by People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]) because the suppression court did not rule upon these issues, and this Court may not affirm on those alternative grounds … . People v Bonilla, 2022 NY Slip Op 07304, First Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here the waiver of appeal was deemed invalid and there was an extensive dissent on that issue. The motion to suppress should not have been denied on a ground not raised by the People. An appellate court cannot consider issues not ruled on below.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL MISCALENDARED THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT DUE TO LAW OFFICE FAILURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment due to law office failure should have been granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment had been granted:

The law office failure of miscalendaring dates has been deemed a reasonable excuse … . Here, defendant’s counsel miscalendared the return date of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for July 1, 2021 rather than June 1, 2021. Counsel explained that it is his regular practice to calendar motion dates once a return date is set; to review his calendar daily and on or about the first of each month; and that he had been working part-time at home with a less robust system compared to his office … . Accordingly, defendant proffered a reasonable excuse in the form of law office failure and should not be deprived of its day in court for counsel’s error … .  First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. v Successful Abstract, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07186, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Miscalendaring the return date for the motion for summary judgment was deemed a reasonable excuse for the default (law office failure).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR DEFAULT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE NEED BE SHOWN IN A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317; DEFAULT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s (St. Andrews’) motion to vacate the default judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. St. Andrews had not updated its address with the Secretary of State and did not have a reasonable excuse. However a reasonable excuse is not required by CPLR 317:

St. Andrews’s principal demonstrated that he had received a letter notification of plaintiff’s accident before commencement of the action which he forwarded to his insurance broker, but that he never received any further notice until he received the information subpoena. The principal of DP Realty [designated by St. Andrews to receive service of process] also averred that he was unaware of the summons and complaint ever having been received, and therefore it would not have forwarded any papers to St. Andrews. That evidence was sufficient under CPLR 317 to establish St. Andrews’s lack of personal notice of the summons in time to defend. St. Andrews also demonstrated a meritorious defense in that the Yonkers City Code “does not expressly make the landowner liable for failure to perform” the duty to clean snow and ice from the sidewalk, and an abutting landowner is not liable in the absence of such a statute for failure to clear snow, ice and dirt … .

… [P]laintiff demonstrated that St. Andrews never updated its address with the Secretary of State, and thus could not show a reasonable excuse for its default under CPLR 5015(a)(1). However, no showing of a reasonable excuse is required under CPLR 317 … , and it cannot be inferred solely from the failure to update defendant’s address with the Secretary of State that defendant was deliberately avoiding receiving notice … . In light of the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits … , we find that St. Andrews demonstrated entitlement to vacatur under CPLR 317… . Gomez v Karyes Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07187, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: No reasonable excuse for a default need be shown in a motion the vacate the default pursuant to CPLR 317, Here the defendant’s failure to update its address for the service of process with the Secretary of State was not an attempt to avoid service. The motion to vacate the default should have been granted.

 

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