You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

WHERE THE EMPLOYER OF A PHYSICIAN HAS PAID THE PREMIUMS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY DEMUTUALIZES, ABSENT AN AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE PROCEEDS GO TO THE PHYSICIAN, NOT THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court based on a recent Court of Appeals ruling, determined the proceeds from the demutualization of a medical malpractice insurer belong to the physician, not to the physician’s employer (the plaintiff here):

The Court of Appeals has recently held that “when an employer pays premiums to a mutual insurance company to obtain a policy of which its employee is the policyholder, and the insurance company demutualizes, absent contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement, the policyholder is entitled to the proceeds from the demutualization” … .

… [D]efendant is entitled to the demutualization proceeds. There is no evidence of any contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement. In fact, defendant’s employment agreement provides that “[t]he Employer agrees that it will pay or reimburse the Employee for that portion of such insurance premiums that are attributable to the period coinciding with the Term [of employment].” Plaintiff … acknowledged … that it paid the insurance premiums “as a fringe benefit to the Physician employee.” … .

It is irrelevant that plaintiff, who is not listed as the policy administrator in the policy, paid the policy premiums during the relevant period and acted as the policy administrator … . Mid-Manhattan Physician Servs., P.C. v Dworkin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04523, First Dept 7-12-22

​Similar issues and result in Sullivan v Northwell Health, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04525, First Dept 7-12-22

​Practice Point: Where the employer of a physician has paid the premiums for medical malpractice insurance and the insurance company demutualizes, absent an agreement to the contrary, the proceeds go to the physician, not the employer.

 

,

THE POLICE WERE “ACTING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE FUNCTION” WHEN THEY SEARCHED THE INJURED DEFENDANT AND FOUND A CARTRIDGE; DEFENDANT WAS DRIFTING IN AND OUT OF CONSCIOUSNESS; THE POLICE PROPERLY SEARCHED HIS POCKETS FOR IDENTIFICATION; SUPPRESSION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the search of plaintiff’s clothing by the police did not require suppression of the cartridge found in defendant’s pocket because the police were “acting in the public service function” in aiding the injured defendant:

… [T]he hearing court … denied suppression of a cartridge recovered from defendant’s pants pocket, correctly finding that “the police were acting in their public service function in rendering aid when searching the defendant’s clothing for identification.” When police arrived, defendant was lying on the ground and screaming that he had been shot. He appeared to have been shot in the leg, he was drifting in and out of consciousness, and he could not state his name. At that point, the officers were treating defendant as an injured victim rather than a suspect, and were not performing a law enforcement function … . Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to believe defendant needed immediate assistance and to search his pants for identification as they waited for him to be transported to the hospital …  In performing this public service function, it was reasonable for the police to ascertain the identity of the person they were aiding and to supply that information to medical personnel, and defendant did not appear capable of communicating his identity. People v Hatchett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04282, First Dept 7-5-22

Practice Point: When the police aid an injured person and search the person’s pockets for identification, they are “acting in the public service function.” Suppression of any contraband found in the search will be denied.

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) WAS “INSANE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CPLR WHEN HE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY MUST BE DETERMINED AT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; IF THE IP WAS INSANE, THE MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL BE TOLLED; IF NOT THE MALPRACTICE ACTION IS UNTIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined questions about the incapacitated person’s (IP’s) sanity should be part of the legal malpractice trial. If the IP is determined to have been “insane” at the time he was represented by defendant attorney, the statute of limitations for the legal malpractice action would have been tolled, if not, the action was not timely:

The parties do not dispute that [defendant attorney] established prima facie that this action asserting breach of fiduciary duty and related causes of action (the malpractice action) was commenced after the applicable statutes of limitations had expired. However, plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether the statutes of limitations were tolled for “insanity” (… CPLR 208[a]). Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the record presents issues of fact as to the IP’s ability to protect his legal rights and his overall ability to function in society at the time his claims against [defendant attorney] accrued … . Matter of Verdugo v Smiley & Smiley, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 04138, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: There is an “insanity” statute-of -imitations toll in the CPLR. Here there a question of fact whether an incapacitated person was insane when he was represented by defendant attorney such that the legal malpractice statute of limitations was tolled.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY TERMINATED DEFENDANT’S SELF-REPRESENTATION DURING THE TRIAL BASED ON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECLINED TO EXCUSE A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM A MATIERAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE DISCUSSED HIS MENTAL CONDITION WITH COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined defendant, who was representing himself at the time, was not deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of the proceeding when the judge, outside defendant’s presence, discussed whether defendant, who apparently was in an agitated state, should be examined by a psychiatrist. Ultimately no examination was ordered. The First Department held the trial judge properly terminated defendant’s self-representation based on his behavior during the trial. In addition, the First Department concluded that a juror who apparently stated he did not wish to continue participating in the deliberations, was not grossly unqualified:

… [T]he record supports a determination that defendant’s conduct prevented the fair and orderly exposition of the issues and was disruptive to the proceedings … . During the examination of the People’s witnesses, defendant was repeatedly told by the court to “calm down,” to not get agitated, to not argue and be combative with the witnesses, and to not argue with the court regarding its rulings. The record also reflects instances where the court explained its rulings to defendant, defendant stated he understood and would then immediately engage in the same conduct. Moreover, during his testimony, the court repeatedly admonished defendant to stop making arguments to the jury. When asked twice by the court to sit down, he refused to do so. Defendant also repeatedly ignored the direction of the court officer to sit down. Instead, defendant remained standing, continued his argument and questioned the court’s ruling. Defendant also made reference to his over one-year period of pretrial detention as well as that he had a teenage son. People v Williams, 2022 NY Slip Op 04135, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s agitated behavior during the trial was a proper ground for terminating his self-representation. The judge’s discussion with counsel, outside defendant’s presence, of defendant’s mental health was not a material stage of the proceedings. The judge properly refused to exclude a juror who, during deliberations, said he did not want to continue.

 

,

THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THE VICTIM WAS FIXATED ON THE UNIQUE WHITE AND BLACK PATTERN ON THE SHIRT WORN BY THE ROBBER; IN THE PHOTO ARRAY A SHIRT WITH A BLACK AND WHITE DESIGN WAS VISIBLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PHOTO, BUT THE FILLERS WERE ALL WEARING SOLID COLOR SHIRTS (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the photo array from which the victim identified defendant was unduly suggestive:

The hearing court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s identification of defendant in a photo array. The photo array was unduly suggestive because defendant was the only person shown wearing “distinctive clothing . . .which fit the description” of the suspect … . Moreover, the distinctive clothing was an outstanding feature of the identifying witness’s description of the robber …  The victim told the police that he “fixated” on the “unusual shirt” the r0bber was wearing during the incident, a white shirt with a distinctive black design. In the photo array, the visible part of defendant’s shirt closely matched the robber’s shirt as described by the victim. The fillers, on the other hand, all wore shirts that, to the extent visible in the photos, were solid-colored shirts without any markings or designs. People v Sulayman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04132, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: Here the victim told the police the robber wore an “unusual shirt” with a black and white pattern. In the photo array from which the victim identified the defendant, the defendant was the only one with a black-and-white patterned shirt. All the fillers had solid color shirts. The array was deemed unduly suggestive and a new trial was ordered.

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S REUNIFICATION WITH HER FATHER IN THE IVORY COAST WAS NOT VIABLE TO ENABLE HER TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) AND REMAIN IN THE US (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined Family Court should have found reunification with petitioner’s father in the Ivory Coast was not viable. Petitioner, 16 years old, sought findings from Family Court which would allow her to apply for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) and remain in the United States:

Family Court erred in not making any findings of fact as to reunification with petitioner’s father. Exercising our power to review the record and to make our own factual determinations … , we find that the record supports a finding that reunification of petitioner with her father, respondent Lassina D., is not viable due to neglect within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (f)(i) (A)—(B). Petitioner’s testimony shows that the father did not meet the minimal degree of care since he did not provide for her medical and emotional needs while she was in the Ivory Coast, and has not contributed to her financial support or maintained regular contact with her since she has been in the United States …  Her uncontroverted testimony also supports a finding of neglect based on the father’s excessive use of corporal punishment … .Matter of Sara D. v Lassina D., 2022 NY Slip Op 04119, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: Family Court can be petitioned to make findings which will allow a juvenile to apply for special immigrant juvenile status in order to avoid deportation to the juvenile’s home country. Here the court was asked to make findings that reunification with the petitioner’s parents is not viable. The First Department found that father had neglected petitioner and she therefore could not be returned to his care.

 

HERE THE DEFENDANTS RAISED PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A RELEASE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH PLAINTIFF’S AFFIRMATION ADEQUATELY ALLLEGED THE RELEASE WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING OR UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE WAS NOT A BAR TO CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff adequately alleged a release (raised by defendants as an affirmative defense) was the product of overreaching and therefore did not bar certain causes of action:

… [T]he amended complaint, along with the affirmation plaintiff submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion, sufficiently alleges that the release was the result of overreaching or unfair circumstances. A court must accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint and submissions in opposition to the motion, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Under the alleged facts, the affirmative defense of the release does not entirely bar plaintiff’s action at this stage of the litigation. “[I]t is inequitable to allow a release to bar a claim where. . .it is alleged. . .that it was the result of overreaching or unfair circumstances” … . Chadha v Wahedna, 2022 NY Slip Op 04089, First Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: At least at the motion-to-dismiss stage, adequate allegations that a release was the product of overreaching or unfair circumstances will preclude dismissal of causes action which would have been barred by a valid release.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER THE POLICE ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE AND IN FAILING TO NOTIFY THE DISPATCHER OF THE CHASE, AND (2) WHETHER THE CHASE WAS A PROXIMATE OR CONCURRENT CAUSE OF PLAINTFFS’ ACCIDENT (THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH EITHER VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CHASE) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined plaintiffs raised questions of fact about whether the police acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others during a high-speed chase, and whether the chase of the BMW driven by Llewellyn was a proximate or concurrent cause of the accident (neither vehicle involved in the chase struck plaintiffs’ vehicle):

… [T]he motion court properly held that the reckless disregard standard applied in evaluating the City defendants’ conduct in pursuing Llewellyn (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1104[b], 1104[e]). However, the motion court erred in determining that “there is no evidence that the NYPD officers acted recklessly as a matter of law, and that the pursuit was not the proximate cause or a concurrent cause of this incident” … . …

Plaintiffs … submitted evidence that the City defendants initiated a high-speed chase of Llewellyn’s BMW at close proximity after observing it run a single red light, and continued the high-speed chase, which included crossing over a double yellow line and running two red lights, in a known congested and heavily populated residential area which at the time of the pursuit had moderate to heavy traffic and numerous pedestrians…. . …

Plaintiffs also raised an issue of fact concerning whether the NYPD officers acted recklessly in failing to notify the radio dispatcher at the start of the pursuit and inform headquarters with relevant information, including the nature of the offense. Handelsman v Llewellyn, 2022 NY Slip Op 04093, First Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Here there were questions of fact whether the police acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others during a high-speed chase such that the city would be liable for plaintiffs’ accident, and whether the high-speed chase was a proximate or concurrent cause of plaintiffs’ accident (there was no contact with either vehicle involved in the chase). There were questions of fact whether the police drove “in reckless disregard of the safety of others” and whether their failure to notify the dispatcher of the chase was also reckless.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF COVID-RELATED PROCEDURAL CHANGES FOR CONDUCTING COMPLIANCE CONFERENCES; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID-related law office failure was an adequate excuse and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the action should have been granted:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal, as plaintiffs showed both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 2005 …). Under the circumstances, law office failure constitutes a reasonable excuse for the default, since plaintiffs’ counsel was unaware that procedures for conducting compliance conferences had changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and, as a result, inadvertently failed to submit stipulations before a scheduled conference … .. Furthermore, plaintiffs demonstrated a meritorious cause of action by submitting the complaint, a bill of particulars, and the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony … . Defendants also were not prejudiced by plaintiffs’ failure to appear, and indeed, did not oppose the motion to vacate … . Willner v S Norsel Realties LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04111, First Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s attorney was not aware of procedural changes related to COVID and the action was dismissed because counsel did not submit stipulations before the scheduled compliance conference. This “law office failure” was a “reasonable excuse.” Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the action should have been granted.

 

,

IN NEW YORK THERE ARE NO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR “PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE” OR “WRONGFUL LIFE;” HERE MOTHER ALLEGED THE DRUG SHE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR EPILEPSY BEFORE SHE LEARNED SHE WAS PREGNANT CAUSED THE BABY TO BE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ actions for “preconception negligence” and “wrongful life” should have been dismissed. Plaintiff mother had been treated for epilepsy for years with a drug (VPA). She became pregnant while taking the drug and stopped taking it as soon as she learned she was pregnant. The baby was born with spina bifida:

Defendants treated the infant plaintiff’s mother for epilepsy. To control her seizures, they prescribed valproic acid (VPA), which the mother had been taking for years while under the care of other physicians. Unbeknownst to all, while she was on VPA, the mother conceived the infant plaintiff. Although the VPA was discontinued when the mother learned that she was pregnant, the infant was born with spina bifida, for which she seeks to hold defendants responsible.

It is well established that an infant has no cause of action for preconception negligence … . The infant’s claims that defendants failed to ensure that her mother was on birth control and monitored regularly for pregnancy while on VPA sound in “wrongful life,” for which there is also no cause of action … . Z.L. v Mount Sinai Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04112, First Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: New York does not recognize actions for “preconception negligence” or “wrongful life.” Here mother alleged the epilepsy drug she was taking until she learned she was pregnant caused her baby to be born with spina bifida. Both causes of action 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