You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WITHOUT SPECIFYING PARTICULAR DATES OR WEEKS; AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WILL SUPPORT A “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Labor Law and the proof submitted by defendant did not support a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence:

Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently states a claim for unpaid overtime wages in violation of Labor Law §§ 191 and 663 and 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 … . Plaintiffs allege that they were not compensated for hours spent before and after their shift, loading company vehicles and receiving job assignments, before traveling to construction sites throughout the New York City region … . Although the complaint does not contain the particular dates or weeks that plaintiffs were allegedly underpaid, it provides sufficient notice of their causes of action for unpaid wages and overtime based on pre-shift and post-shift work performed at defendant’s yard … .

In addition, defendant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to support a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1). Dismissal on the basis of documentary evidence is appropriate only if that evidence “utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Affidavits are not documentary evidence that can support a 3211(a)(1) motion … . The documentary evidence fails to utterly refute plaintiffs’ claim that they were not timely paid overtime compensation. Despite defendant’s assertions, it is unclear whether the daily reports submitted with its motion properly reflect the alleged work performed before plaintiffs’ shifts began or after their shifts had purportedly ended. Rosario v Hallen Constr. Co., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01490, First Dept 3-21-23

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated a cause of action for unpaid overtime despite the absence of specific dates or week when plaintiffs were allegedly underpaid.

Practice Point: A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence is not supported when the documents are affidavits.

 

,

THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS’ INSURANCE BROKERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE BROKERS FAILED TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE AND FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFFS OF THE DEFINITIONS AND TERMS OF THE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs-insureds’ negligence cause of action against their insurance brokers should not have been dismissed:

Supreme Court improperly dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for negligence against Thompson Flanagan and WIA, the brokers. Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for negligence against the brokers which was distinct and not duplicative of their breach of contract claim. “‘The law is reasonably settled . . . that insurance agents have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so'” … . Thus, “‘a party who has engaged a person to act as an insurance broker to procure adequate insurance is entitled to recover damages [for breach of contract] from the broker if the policy obtained does not cover a loss for which the broker contracted to provide insurance, and the insurance company refuses to cover the loss'” … .. Additionally, “[a]n insurance agent or broker can be held liable in negligence if he or she fails to exercise due care in an insurance brokerage transaction” and “[t]hus, a plaintiff may seek to hold a defendant broker liable under a theory of either negligence or breach of contract” … . Here, in addition to alleging both brokers breached a contract to procure adequate insurance coverage, plaintiffs also assert that they failed to inform them of the definitions and terms of the policy. The latter allegations implicate a duty and potential breach by the brokers independent from the contract … . Florence Capital Advisors, LLC v Thompson Flanagan & Co., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01358, First Dept 3-16-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs-insureds stated a cause of action sounding in negligence against their insurance brokers for failure to procure adequate insurance and failing to inform plaintiffs of the definitions and terms of the policy. The negligence allegations alleged a duty independent from the contract.

 

THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that removal of a guardian does not require a testimonial hearing:

The Mental Hygiene Law does not support appellants’ contention that they were entitled to a testimonial hearing in this case before being removed. Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 provides that a guardian may be removed when she or he “fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just” … . A motion on notice, served on the persons specified in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16 (c), is required but there is no statutory right to a hearing … . This relaxed requirement stands in distinction to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (a), which provides that the petition for the appointment of a guardian for an alleged IP [incapacitated person], whose liberty interests are at stake, “shall be made only after a hearing” … . The reason a guardian has “no due process right to a full hearing,” nor is a “full blown” hearing necessary for their removal, is that a guardian has no “property interest” to protect … . Matter of Edgar V.L., 2023 NY Slip Op 01360, First Dept 3-16-23

Practice Point: Although the Mental Hygiene Law requires a testimonial hearing before the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated person, no hearing is required for the removal of a guardian.

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED ON DEBRIS AND FELL INTO A TWO-TO-THREE-FOOT-DEEP PIT FROM WHICH THE PLYWOOD COVER HAD BEEN REMOVED TRIGGERING POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; TWO DEFENDANTS MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the complaint in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action. Plaintiff’s decedent allegedly tripped on debris and fell into a two-to-three-foot deep pit from which the plywood cover had been removed:

… [P]laintiff has raised an issue of fact as to whether application of Labor Law § 240 governs this claim sufficient to defeat defendants’ various motions for summary judgment … .

… [P]laintiff raised issues of fact barring dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, as Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(e) and 23-1.30 may apply to circumstances of plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff’s decedent testified that he tripped over debris in a passageway and then into a pit in an area that was arguably a work area … .

As to Baring’s liability under the Labor Law, it failed to establish that it is not a statutory agent for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6). Baring’s contract with Plaza delegated the authority to Baring to supervise and control the installation of kitchen equipment and obligated it to exercise such supervision over any of its subcontractors, such as decedent’s employer. That it may not have actually done so is not dispositive … .

With respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action as against NYY Steak and Plaza, there is an issue of fact as to whether those defendants were on notice that the illumination at the site was insufficient … .. Plaintiff also adduced evidence of constructive notice as to the uncovered pit… . Devita v NYY Steak Manhattan, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01257, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff allegedly tripped on debris and fell into a two-to-three-foot-deep pit from which the plywood cover had been removed. Both Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) were therefore implicated. One defendant may have been liable as a statutory agent of the owner with supervisory authority. Two other defendants may have been liable for the dangerous conditions, including inadequate lighting, pursuant to Labor Law 200.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS SUFFICIENT; BUT THE EVIDENCE FATHER DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE SON WAS NOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying Family Court) determined the evidence father derivatively neglected the son was insufficient:

Family Court’s determination that respondent derivatively neglected his son J.L. was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The finding was based entirely on the excessive corporal punishment of the daughter, which took place outside the home. There was no evidence that respondent’s excessive corporal punishment was ever directed at the older child, who was 14 years old at the time, or that he was even aware of the abuse. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the son was at risk of becoming impaired, as he continued to reside with respondent after the petitions were filed … . Matter of C.L. (Edward L.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01260, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: There was no evidence the son was even aware of father’s excessive corporal punishment of the daughter, which took place outside the home. The evidence father derivatively neglected the son was insufficient.

 

,

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.

 

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