You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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.

 

,

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.

 

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