You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL RESEARCH (LEXISNEXIS) CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal research contract (LexisNexis) signed by plaintiff-attorney was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable:

A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made, namely, some showing of “an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party” … . Procedural unconscionability examines the circumstances at the time an agreement was entered into, including the commercial setting, whether deceptive or high-pressured tactics were employed, whether a party had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, which party drafted the contract, whether fine print was used in an agreement as to material terms, whether there was an alternative supply for the goods or services in question, the experience and education of the party claiming unconscionability, whether there was disparity in the bargaining power, and whether a contract of adhesion is at issue … . Whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable presents a question of law for the court although it is a fact-based determination … .

… Plaintiff is an attorney, who did not assert any mental deficiencies, but only alleged duress from defendants’ conduct in pursuing his signature on the 2020 Agreement. The urgency underlying plaintiff’s signing the 2020 Agreement, without reading it, apart from promised lower service rates, is unclear. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how there is inequality in the bargaining power in this instance. Plaintiff is on equal footing with the defendants in understanding contract law, as well as the consequences of signing a contract. Moreover, the terms in the 2020 Agreement were similar to the majority of the material terms in the parties’ 2019 Agreement, which plaintiff does not claim was unconscionable. Kaufman v Relx Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07192, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff-attorney alleged the electronic legal research contract he signed with LexisNexis was unconscionable. The decision explains procedural and substantive unconscionability and held plaintiff, as an attorney, was on equal footing in negotiating the contract.

 

,

THE LETTER CRITICIZING THE FORMER DEAN OF THE FASHION INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT DEFAMATORY ON ITS FACE, BUT THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s defamation-by-implication complaint should not have been dismissed:

… [P]laintiff, the former Dean of Graduate Studies at defendant Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), was placed on leave following criticisms over culturally insensitive accessories presented in an FIT-sponsored alumni fashion show. Plaintiff alleges that a letter published by defendants contained defamatory remarks on its face, implied, or both, and impugned plaintiff’s reputation…. .

… [T]he letter implies that plaintiff was responsible for the show and failed to recognize the accessories as insensitive, even though she took no part in managing, directing, or approving the show. The complaint contains references to publications from other sources that interpret the letter as placing the blame on plaintiff and deeming her leadership inexcusable and irresponsible … . On a CPLR 3211 (a)(7) motion to dismiss, denial is warranted if taking the words used both in their ordinary meaning and in context make them susceptible to a defamatory connotation as occurs in this case … . The letter also contains statements of mixed opinion, “While a pure opinion cannot be the subject of a defamation claim, an opinion that ‘implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it, . . . is a ‘mixed opinion’ and is actionable'” … .

The letter omitted plaintiff’s nonparticipation in the production, direction, and management of the fashion show; her unawareness as to the accessories the designers planned to present; the FIT policy precluding academic deans from evaluating, censoring, or approving student and alumni work; and plaintiff’s prompt response to student concerns and her proactive approach to address those concerns; and implied that plaintiff was responsible for the show, was aware of the accessories, could approve them, and failed to respond to student concerns. Davis v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 07147, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Here the writing was not defamatory on its face. But the complaint stated a cause of action for defamation by implication. The letter included actionable statements of “mixed opinion” and omitted important facts which relieved plaintiff of responsibility for the claimed misconduct.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS WERE FACING SUSPENSION OF THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW WAS NOT PROTECTED AS FAIR AND TRUE LEGAL REPORTING PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION PER SE, DISPARAGEMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LANHAM ACT AND GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (FIRST DEPT).

The Fist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Civil Rights Law 74 did not protect the statements in defendant’s online ad claiming that plaintiffs were facing suspension of their license to practice law because the litigation referred to in the ad did not mention anything about plaintiffs’ law license. Civil Rights Law 74 protects only “fair and true” reports on judicial proceedings. The complaint stated causes of action for defamation per se, disparagement and violations of the Lanham Act and General Business Law 349:

Civil Rights Law § 74 did not apply to the challenged statements in defendant’s online ads that, in linking to a news article about pending litigation against plaintiffs by a former client in California, asserted that plaintiffs were facing suspension of their license to practice law. The news article did not mention that plaintiffs’ law license was at risk nor did the complaint against plaintiffs seek suspension of their law license. Accordingly, this statement was not shielded from liability as defendant failed to demonstrate that it was a “fair and true” report of a judicial proceeding … . …

Based on defendant’s allegedly false statement that plaintiffs were facing a suspension of their license, plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for defamation per se … . …

… [T]he factual allegations in the complaint were sufficient to sustain causes of action for disparagement, and violations under the federal Lanham Act and General Business Law § 349, at the pleading stage … . Luo & Assoc. v NYIS Law Firm, A.P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 07154, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Civil Rights Law 74 protects only “fair and true” reports on judicial proceedings. Here the statements plaintiffs were facing the suspension of their license to practice law was not mentioned in the article referencing the judicial proceedings, so the statements were actionable as defamation per se, disparagement and violations of the Lanham Act and General Business Law 349.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF $1000 PER DAY FOR THE TIME PLAINTIFFS WERE UNABLE TO LIVE IN THEIR TOWNHOUSE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ RENOVATIONS NEXT DOOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a decision addressing many issues not summarized here, determined the plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages of $1000 per day for the time plaintiffs were unable to live in their townhouse because of the renovation work undertaken by the defendants next door:

On May 2, 2013, after intensive negotiations guided by legal counsel, Mr. Seymour [plaintiff] and the Hovnanians [defendants] executed a license agreement. The purpose of the license agreement was to grant the Hovnanians 18 months of access to the Seymours’ property while simultaneously protecting the Seymours’ property from further harm during construction. The license agreement contained a liquidated damages clause providing that if the “Project Owner failed to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) within Eighteen (18) months from the date of this Agreement, he shall pay liquidated damages to the Adjacent Owner of $1,000 per day for every day thereafter until the TCO is issued.” The Hovnanians never obtained a temporary certificate of occupancy but, 318 days after the expiration of the 18-month license term, they obtained a certificate of occupancy. …

The court correctly awarded plaintiffs $318,000 in liquidated damages, plus interest, comprised of $1,000 per day for the period of November 2, 2014 to September 15, 2015. “Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . These provisions “have value in those situations where it would be difficult, if not actually impossible, to calculate the amount of actual damage” … . Liquidated damages will be sustained if, at the time of the contract, “the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . Seymour v Hovnanian, 2022 NY Slip Op 07172, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Here the license agreement properly required liquidated damages of $1000 per day for the time plaintiffs were not able to live in their townhouse because of defendants’ renovations next door.

 

, , , ,

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY NO LONGER HAS THE REQUISITE CONNECTION TO RELIGION AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE PRIDE ALLIANCE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION AS AN OFFICIAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a student group (Pride Alliance) at Yeshiva University was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law (City HRL)on its claims asserting gender, sexual orientation, and association discrimination. In addition Pride Alliance was entitled to a permanent injunction requiring Yeshiva to recognize the group as an official student organization. Essentially, Yeshiva argued the university was exempt from the requirements of the City HRL as a religious corporation or institution, but the university no longer had the requisite connection to religion: Yeshiva’s constitutional arguments (free exercise of religion, freedom of expression and association) were rejected:

Yeshiva was originally chartered in 1897 under the Membership Corporations Law as the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Association (RIETS), with the stated purpose to “promote the study of Talmud” and prepare Orthodox Jewish rabbis for ministry. Over several decades, the charter was amended to allow numerous secular degrees to be awarded and to change the name of the institution, while RIETS remained part of Yeshiva. In 1967, Yeshiva amended its charter to become incorporated under the Education Law. Two years later it amended the charter to drop Hebrew Literature and Religious Education degrees, since RIETS was being spun off as its own corporation offering those degrees, and to “clarify the corporate status of the University as a non-denominational institution of higher learning.” While Yeshiva is now comprised of three undergraduate colleges and seven graduate schools, RIETS remains a separate corporate entity housed on one of Yeshiva’s campuses. YU Pride Alliance v Yeshiva Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 07175, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Yeshiva University was not entitled to exemption from the discrimination prohibitions in the NYC Human Rights Law because the university no longer has the requisite connection to religion. Therefore the “Pride Alliance” was entitled to recognition as an official student group.

 

THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHEN PLAINTIFF OPENED THE EMERGENCY HATCH ON THE HOIST FOR A REPAIRMAN, THE HATCH DOOR SLAMMED BACK DOWN ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was attempting to aid in the repair of a hoist when he opened the emergency hatch and the hatch door fell back down, striking plaintiff’s head. The court ruled that the hoist was a covered safety device and plaintiff was entitled to some form of protection that would prevent the hatch door from falling back down after it was opened: In the alternative, the court noted that the hatch was a falling object which should have been secured:

Plaintiff was injured when the hatch door slammed onto his head as he stood on a ladder with his head protruding above the hatch aperture. We note that, in isolation, a hatch door is not necessarily a safety device … . Here, however, the hatch door was an essential component of a safety device — the hoist — being employed by plaintiff in an elevation-related capacity. It was foreseeable that the hoist could get stuck; indeed, a purpose of the hatch door was to serve as an emergency egress in such instances. When he was injured, plaintiff was still engaged in an elevation-related activity and attempting to safely remove himself from a height. Under these circumstances, the safety device — the hoist — was inadequate for its purpose of keeping plaintiff safe while engaged in an elevation-related activity. Plaintiff is thus entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his claim under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Ladd v Thor 680 Madison Ave LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07031, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Here the hoist plaintiff was operating was deemed a safety device covered by Labor Law 240(1). The door on the hoist’s emergency hatch slammed back down on plaintiffs’ head after he opened it to allow access to the hoist by a repairman. Plaintiff was entitled to some sort of protection which would prevent the open hatch door from falling back down. As an alternative, the hatch door was a falling object which should have been secured.

 

,

THE PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED DISFIGUREMENT” IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault first conviction and reducing it to attempted assault first, determined the People did not prove the scar on the victim’s cheek met the definition of “serious and protracted disfigurement.” The People introduced two photos of the scar and the doctor who treated the injury testified. The victim did not testify:

Defendant’s convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to prove that the victim suffered serious and permanent disfigurement, which was the basis of both counts (see Penal Law §§ 120.10[1], [2]). The People relied solely on two photos of the victim depicting a scar on his cheek, and the scar was briefly described by the doctor who treated the victim on the day of the slashing. Despite the scar’s prominent location, neither the photos nor the doctor’s testimony warrant an inference that the scar rendered the victim’s appearance “distressing or objectionable” to a reasonable observer … . The victim did not testify, so the jury had no opportunity to observe the actual scar and evaluate whether it was seriously disfiguring, nor was any other evidence adduced regarding the scar’s effects on the victim’s appearance, health, and life … . People v McBride, 2022 NY Slip Op 07034, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Here defendant was charged with assault first for causing “serious and protracted disfigurement” to the victim. Although two photos of the scar were introduced in evidence and the treating doctor testified, the victim did not testify. It appears that the jury’s inability to see the victim at the time of trial rendered the proof legally insufficient.

 

,

PLAINTIFF-TENANT’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S STIPULATION WITH THE PRIOR TENANT IN 2000 ILLEGALLY DECONTROLLED THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed. “Plaintiff, the current tenant of the subject apartment, commenced this action seeking a declaration that her tenancy is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) and that the premises were illegally decontrolled in 2000 when defendant owner and nonparty Edward McKinney reached a ‘private agreement’ circumventing initial rent registration procedures for decontrolling the apartment.” The decision and the dissent are detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

An agreement by a tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the rent control law is expressly prohibited and void (9 NYCRR 2200.15 …). However, when McKinney and defendant settled their dispute over McKinney’s status, McKinney was not a tenant … . He was not on the lease and had no evident rights, other than being an occupant of the apartment who claimed that he had succession rights when Brown died. … Defendant, on the other hand, denied that McKinney was anything other than a squatter/licensee or possible roommate of the deceased. By entering into the 2000 stipulation, both sides, represented by counsel, resolved their dispute as to whether McKinney had any statutory right to the apartment. By doing so, McKinney and defendant chose the certainty of settlement, rather than the uncertainty of a judicial declaration about McKinney’s status … .

From the dissent:

… I would find that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that the stipulation that McKinney and defendant executed in 2000 (the 2000 stipulation) was void under applicable statutes, as interpreted by our Court and the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, I would vote to affirm the portion of the motion court’s decision that denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, third and fourth causes of action. Liggett v Lew Realty LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07000, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff-tenant alleged defendant-landlord illegally decontrolled the apartment in 2000 by entering an agreement (a stipulation) with the prior tenant. The majority held the complaint did not state a cause of action. The two dissenters disagreed.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney attend the lineup identification procedure by sending his paralegal. The paralegal was turned away:

Defendant was deprived of his right to have counsel present at a … postindictment lineup. It is undisputed that defendant had a right to counsel at this lineup, which was conducted at a time when he already had representation. Although defendant’s counsel was notified of the lineup and did not attend, a paralegal employed by counsel attempted to attend the lineup but was turned away by the police.

The attorney did not waive his client’s right to counsel at the lineup by failing to appear. The police should have briefly paused this nonexigent, postindictment lineup, conducted long after the crime … , in order to advise the attorney he needed to attend personally, or to have the paralegal so advise counsel. People v Bennett, 2022 NY Slip Op 07007, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point; Defense counsel sent his paralegal to attend his client’s lineup, but the police sent the paralegal away. The police should have informed counsel his presence was required before going ahead with the lineup. Counsel’s failure to attend did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney present.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS FELONY CONVICTIONS DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO A MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SANDOVAL RULING TO ALLOW QUESTIONING ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CONVICTIONS; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court should not have modified its original Sandoval ruling. The initial Sandoval ruling allowed defendant to be questioned about the number of felony conviction on his record but not about any of the underlying facts. When defendant was on the stand the court allowed the prosecutor to ask about the underlying facts:

On direct examination, when asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime in New York, defendant answered, “[y]es.” When asked,”[d]o you know how many,” he testified, “[a]pproximately maybe two or three felonies. Maybe four or five misdemeanors.”

On cross-examination, when the prosecutor asked defendant if he had been convicted of three felonies, defendant replied, “I guess so.” In response to the prosecutor’s next question, defendant said he was not sure how many felony convictions he had. The court then modified its Sandoval ruling and permitted the People to exceed the scope of the initial Sandoval ruling by inquiring about the underlying facts of those felony convictions, which included drug and theft-related crimes.

Defendant’s trial testimony did not open the door to a prejudicial modification of the court’s Sandoval ruling. Defendant was entitled to rely on the trial court’s original Sandoval ruling as a matter of “plain fairness” … .

None of defendant’s responses on direct or cross-examination were so incorrect or misleading as to permit the court’s modification … . People v Henderson, 2022 NY Slip Op 07009, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: The court’s initial Sandoval ruling allowed defendant to be about the number of felony convictions on his record. When the defendant was on the stand, the judge modified the Sandoval ruling to allow questioning about the underlying facts. There was nothing about the defendant’s testimony which justified the Sandoval modification and defendant’s conviction was reversed.

 

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