You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

TAKING THE APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE APPPELLANT JUVENILE WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED FROM A NONSECURE TO A SECURE FACILITY; THE JUVENILE’S MISBEHAVIOR WAS NOT THAT SERIOUS; ACS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD EXHAUSTED LESS SEVERE ALTERNATIVES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, considering an otherwise moot appeal because the issue recurs and juveniles are only placed for a limited amount of time, determined the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) did not demonstrate the need to place the appellant (juvenile) in a secure facility:

Under Family Court Act § 355.1(2), Family Court can modify a dispositional order “upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances” by the agency, to place a youth in a secure facility, if “the respondent has demonstrated by a pattern of behavior that he or she needs a more structured setting and the social services district has considered the appropriateness and availability of a transfer to an alternative non-secure or limited secure facility” … . Notably, behaviors meriting a modification include “disruptions in facility programs; continuously and maliciously destroying property; or, repeatedly committing or inciting other youth to commit assaultive or destructive acts” … .

Here, ACS alleged that two incidents where appellant went absent without consent (AWOC) over the course of two months constituted a “pattern of behavior” warranting his placement in a secure facility. The record reflects that, during the first AWOC incident …, appellant “darted out the front door and ran” from a non-secure facility. During the second incident …, appellant fled through a damaged door at a limited secure facility after other youths broke the door while trying to escape. While this behavior is problematic, it simply does not rise to the level of seriousness reflected in the examples provided in the statute, i.e. “continuously and maliciously destroying property” or “repeatedly committing or inciting other youth to commit assaultive or destructive acts” … .

ACS also failed to show that it first “considered the appropriateness and availability of a transfer to an alternative non-secure or limited secure facility” before seeking modification as it was required to do … . According to ACS policies, “[m]odifications must be considered as an option only when all efforts to avoid the modification have been exhausted.” … ACS did not present any affirmations or provide any witness testimony regarding the limited secure facility’s ability to address appellant’s behavior … . Matter of J.D., 2025 NY Slip Op 06807, First Dept 12-9-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the level of a juvenile’s misbehavior which will justify placement in a secure facility, as well as the less severe alternatives which must be tried or demonstrated ineffective first.

 

,

THE POLICE STARTED FOLLOWING DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE CROSSED THE STREET TO AVOID THEM; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR A COMMON-LAW INQUIRY AND NOTHING DEFENDANT DID AFTER THE STREET STOP JUSTIFIED THE LEVEL THREE SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT; THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined what the police saw did not warrant a common-law inquiry on the street and the subsequent level three seizure of the defendant was not justified. Apparently the police felt defendant crossed the street to avoid them, the police followed him and saw him pass something to a woman, after defendant was stopped he was told to take his hand out of his jacket pocket and did so, the officer testified a heavy object was in the jacket pocket, the defendant was then handcuffed and a handgun was found in the pocket:

Defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted. Although we decline to disturb the court’s credibility determinations … , notwithstanding our concerns about discrepancies between the officers’ testimony and what is shown in the body-worn camera footage, the initial inquiry and subsequent seizure were still unjustified. Even crediting the officers’ testimony that their suspicion was aroused when defendant and the woman crossed the street to avoid their patrol car, and then they later observed him pass a small object to the woman, the totality of the circumstances did not give rise to the level of suspicion required for a common-law inquiry … . Neither officer could identify what object was passed from defendant to the woman — one testified that “it could have been anything” — nor otherwise articulate why, from this innocuous behavior, they had a “founded suspicion that criminality was afoot” to warrant a level two encounter … . The police were not responding to a call, there was ambiguous testimony as to whether the encounter took place in a high crime area, and the woman did not give defendant money in exchange or immediately leave “without any kind social interaction” … .

Similarly, this Court’s review of the record, including the body-worn camera video recording of the encounter, indicates that the police were not justified in their escalation to the level three seizure in restraining defendant’s wrists simply because, after he was detained, and defendant complied with the officers’ request that he show his hands, he turned his body away from one officer, who observed a “shift in weight” in defendant’s jacket pocket … . Even if there had been a bulge in defendant’s pocket, that observation alone does not imply a reasonable conclusion that defendant was armed … . Defendant’s hands were in clear view when the officers seized him, and nothing in the record indicates that defendant was armed or posed a threat to safety to justify him being frisked … . People v Small, 2025 NY Slip Op 06665, First Dept 12-2-25

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the level of suspicion required to justify a common-law inquiry on the street. Here the police thought the defendant crossed the street to avoid them and they saw defendant pass something to a woman, but could not say what it was. That was not enough.

Practice Point: This decision also illustrates the level of suspicion required to justify a level three seizure on the street. Here defendant was told to remove his hand from his pocket and did so. The police testified there was a bulge in the pocket, but defendant’s hands were visible. The police were not justified in handcuffing the defendant and searching his pocket.

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRODUCE A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING THE VIDEO IN EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s should have been precluded from introducing in evidence a surveillance video depicting plaintiff’s accident. Although the video had been explicitly demanded by plaintiff, defendants did not produce it until after plaintiff’s deposition, six months after the entry of the compliance order:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion seeking discovery sanctions. Plaintiff demonstrated that defendants acted willfully and contumaciously when they failed to turn over video footage of plaintiff’s accident … . Defendants failed to produce the video in response to repeated explicit demands and repeatedly denied the existence of any video of plaintiff’s accident. It was not until after plaintiff’s deposition on May 20, 2024 and during the June 27, 2024 deposition of defendants’ building manager that defendants revealed the existence of the video. While only six months elapsed from entry of the compliance order to the belated production of the video, it cannot be said that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the late production. Defendants should be sanctioned for their dilatory behavior in producing the surveillance video after plaintiff’s deposition had already taken place … .

Given the totality of the circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted the lesser sanction of preclusion … . Larue v 1201-31 Lafayette Ground Gowner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06546, First Dept 11-25-25

Practice Point: Here there was an explicit demand for any video of plaintiff’s accident but defendants did not produce to video until after plaintiff’s deposition. Introduction of the video in evidence was precluded.

 

, , , ,

PETITIONERS, THE NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S PILOT PROGRAM WHICH WOULD ADD 2500 FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO THE CITY STREETS; PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THE ADDED VEHICLES WOULD REDUCE MEMBERS’ INCOME (INJURY-IN-FACT) IN VIOLATION OF A LOCAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioners, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance and two individual drivers, had standing to challenge a pilot program initiated by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission as violating a Local Law. The pilot program would put 2500 more for-hire vehicles (FHV’s} on the street. Petitioners argued standing based on evidence the pilot program will lower the income of the members of the Taxi Workers Alliance. Supreme Court had held the loss-of-income claim was speculative:

… [P]etitioners established both an injury in fact and that their alleged harm satisfies the zone of interest requirement, and they therefore have standing.

… [P]etitioners allege a concrete, particularized harm: a loss of income and a deterioration of driver well-being occasioned by the introduction or potential introduction of additional vehicles into the for-hire market. That harm is neither speculative nor conjunctural; rather, it is well-demonstrated by the legislative facts underpinning Local Law 147, which facts are based, in part, on industry data. Moreover, petitioners’ alleged harm is supported by the findings of the Committee on For-Hire Vehicles as expressed in their reports. The legislative materials evince a clear connection between the number of FHVs on the streets and driver income: when the number of FHVs increases without a corresponding increase in passenger demand, driver income decreases. * * *

… [P]etitioners demonstrated that the alleged harms of loss of income and deterioration of driver well-being fall within the zone of interests or concerns promoted or protected by Local Law 147. Two of the principal interests or concerns expressly promoted or protected by the law are driver income and driver well-being (see Administrative Code § 19-550[a]; 35 RCNY 59A-06[a][1]), and the significant legislative history of Local Law 147 confirms that the City Council was concerned with the human costs associated with the exceptional growth in the FHV market, particularly drivers’ ability to earn a living. Matter of New York Taxi Workers Alliance v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, 2025 NY Slip Op 06551, First Dept 11-25-25

Practice Point: To have standing to challenge a local law, the challenger must demonstrate an injury-in-fact and the injury is within the scope of the protections afforded by the local law.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS COOPERATIVE DURING HIS ARREST; HIS SUBSEQUENT RESISTANCE, THEREFORE, DID NOT CONSTITUTE “RESISTING ARREST;” INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s resisting-arrest conviction was against the weight of the evidence and dismissed the indictment. Defendant was cooperative when he was placed under arrest. His subsequent resistance, therefore, did not constitute resisting arrest:

As the People concede, defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest was against the weight of the evidence … . The undisputed evidence established that defendant was cooperative when he was placed under arrest, handcuffed, physically restrained, and surrounded by police officers … . Defendant’s subsequent physical resistance does not constitute resisting arrest, as he could not have intentionally “prevented or attempted to prevent a police officer from effecting an authorized arrest” by doing so (Penal Law § 205.30). People v Nesmith, 2025 NY Slip Op 06555, First Dept 11-25-24

Practice Point: Any resistance by a defendant which occurs after arrest does not constitute the crime of “resisting arrest.”

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE USED HER ARM TO KEEP THE ELEVATOR DOOR FROM CLOSING; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE ELEVATOR WAS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION TWO WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants (building owner and elevator company) were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint which alleged the elevator doors slammed shut on plaintiff’s hand. A video showed that plaintiff extended her arm between the door frame and the elevator door to keep it from closing:

Movants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating that the elevator door was safe and code compliant at the time of the accident and that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The report prepared by defendant … , approximately two weeks prior to the accident, found that the subject elevator was maintained commensurate with local industry practices and that the systems functioned at or near recommended standards. Moreover, the video of the incident, which plaintiff authenticated by testifying that it was a fair and accurate depiction of the events, showed that plaintiff extended her arm between the door frame and the elevator door to keep the door from closing. Such evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact … . Ellerbee v 61 W. 62 Owners Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 06386, First Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: If you are injured using your arm or hand to stop an elevator door from closing and it is shown the elevator was working properly, your complaint will be dismissed. (But isn’t it foreseeable that people will try to stop an elevator door from closing with their hands, and shouldn’t there be a safety mechanism which would prevent the door from closing?)

 

, , ,

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S DATASHEET IS AN ATTORNEY-WORK-PRODUCT WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO FOIL DISCLOSURE; BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAIL IN THE FOIL PROCEEDINGS, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the District Attorney’s (D.A.’s) datasheet was an attorney-work-product which was not subject to a FOIL disclosure:

Supreme Court appropriately ordered an in camera inspection of all records responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request, including the datasheet that was ultimately produced with redaction of personal information regarding certain people involved in the relevant criminal matter (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.). However, those records should not have included the D.A. datasheet. This Court has previously held that the D.A. datasheet constitutes attorney work product, as it contains the analysis and conclusions of the intake attorney … . As a result, CPLR 3101(c) protects the datasheet from disclosure under FOIL, and it is not subject to disclosure even with redactions … .

In light of this determination, the award of attorneys’ fees is unwarranted, as petitioner has not “substantially prevailed” in its appeal of respondent’s denial … . Furthermore, even had petitioner substantially prevailed, Supreme Court made no “find[ing] that the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access,” and thus, there was no basis for an award of attorneys’ fees to petitioner … . Matter of Law Off. of Cyrus Joubin v Manhattan Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2025 NY Slip Op 06283, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: A FOIL request for a District Attorney’s datasheet will be denied because the datasheet is privileged (attorney-work-product).

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no liability under Labor Law 240(1) because plaintiff fell going down permanent steps after he stepped off the ladder:

Plaintiff testified that on the day of his accident he was working in a meeting room that had projection screens, soundproof walls, and raised floors, including a platform for the speakers. The platform had two access points — one via a ramp and the other on the opposite side of the platform, via a two-step staircase. Plaintiff needed to work on the ceiling above the platform, so he placed his ladder on the platform near the staircase. After he completed his work, he descended the ladder and placed both feet on the platform floor. He then turned to walk down the two-step staircase, missed a step, and fell.

There is no liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) where the plaintiff’s injuries are not related to the failure of a safety device, such as a ladder, to protect the plaintiff from a gravity-related hazard … . Where the “injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first instance, no [Labor Law § 240(1)] liability exists” … . Healy v Trinity Hudson Holdings, 2025 NY Slip Op 06278, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: The failure of absence of a safety device is a prerequisite for liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here plaintiff safely stepped onto a permanent platform from the ladder and then fell going down permanent steps—no Labor Law 240(1) liability.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT MOVED AND HE FELL; THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE 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 in this A-frame ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was standing at the top of the unsecured ladder when it moved and he fell. The fact that there were no witnesses to the accident did not raise a question fact because plaintiff’s testimony was not contradicted and his credibility was not called into question:

Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he worked at the top of the ladder, which was unsecured, it suddenly moved and fell, causing him to land on the floor and injure his shoulder. Plaintiff also testified that after he fell from the ladder, he stood it back up before his supervisor returned. The supervisor stated that upon his return to the room, plaintiff, who was standing next to the upright ladder, told him that the ladder was shaky and had fallen because no one was holding it.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The evidence established that defendant failed to provide a safety device to ensure that the ladder, which plaintiff was instructed to use, would remain upright while he worked. The evidence also showed that plaintiff fell off the ladder when it shifted and fell … . This evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and plaintiff was not obligated to show that the ladder itself was defective … . Molina v Chatham Towers, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06285, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a ladder-fall case, it is enough that the ladder was unsecured and moved. There is no need to show the ladder was defective.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DEMONSTRATED A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR NOT TIMELY FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE AFTER A NINETY-DAY DEMAND, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH RELIED ON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY TWO SOURCES, BUT DID NOT SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS FROM THOSE SOURCES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, although plaintiff offered a justifiable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue, plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Therefore the complaint should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged the defendants negligently failed to provide adequate mental health and substance abuse treatment to the decedent, who died of a drug overdose in a shelter owned and operated by defendants:

Following a period of over one year during which plaintiff failed to respond to their discovery demands, defendants served plaintiff with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days (see CPLR 3216[b]). Plaintiff failed to respond within the 90-day period, resulting in defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Although plaintiff’s counsel offered a justifiable excuse for the failure to file a note of issue following defendants’ service of 90-day notices, plaintiff failed to submit an adequate affidavit of merit demonstrating a meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants’ motions … . In her affidavit, plaintiff, who had no personal knowledge of the events in question, relied on two unnamed hearsay sources … . Plaintiff offered no excuse for failing to provide affidavits from the shelter residents who supplied her with the information upon which her affidavit was based … , and, in any event, she did not show that defendants’ negligence was “a substantial cause of the events” resulting in her son’s death … . Felipe v Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., 2025 NY Slip Op 06252, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: In seeking to avoid dismissal of a complaint for failing to timely file a note of issue after a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must offer a justifiable excuse and demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Here plaintiff’s counsel provided a justifiable excuse. But to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action plaintiff submitted an affidavit which relied on hearsay. Without affidavits from the sources of the hearsay, a meritorious cause of action was not demonstrated and the complaint should have been dismissed.

 

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