You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (HRL); THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED A CLAIM UNDER ONLY THE CITY HRL; THE CONTINUING VIOLATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO ISOLATED STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a hostile work environment claim under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL) and sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL: The isolated statement made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine:

Plaintiff’s allegations, that several times a week over a period of at least two years, plaintiff’s coworker spoke to him in a mock Chinese accent, told plaintiff to “open your eyes,” and tormented him about his mandatory drug testing in a sexually and racially charged manner, are sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim based on national origin discrimination under both the State and City HRLs … .

… [T]he allegations that his coworker regularly made statements about plaintiff’s penis size when plaintiff took bathroom breaks or reported for drug testing “fall within the broad range of conduct that falls between ‘severe and pervasive’ on the one hand and a ‘petty slight or trivial inconvenience’ on the other,” such that they are sufficient under the City HRL but not under the State HRL … . The continuing violation doctrine does not apply to the isolated statements made outside the limitations period because they do not form part of “a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the [limitations] period . . . , but rather discrete events, involving different actors, occurring months to years apart” … . Lum v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05594, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: The allegations that a coworker spoke using a mock Chinese accent and told plaintiff “open your eyes” stated hostile work environment claims under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL). The allegations that a coworker made comments about the size of plaintiff’s penis stated a sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL. Isolated statements made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine.

 

, ,

THE PARTIES HAD ALREADY STIPULATED TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CONFERENCES OR OUTLINE REMAINING DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the action based on plaintiff’s failure to appear at conferences or file a stipulation outlining discovery should have been granted. The parties had already stipulated to restore the action to the calendar and the court should have enforced the stipulation:

The motion court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order for failure to appear at conferences or to file a stipulation outlining the remaining discovery … . Defendants had already stipulated to restore the matter to the calendar, and stipulations between the parties are binding on the parties and generally enforced by the courts … . Moreover, the assertion by plaintiff’s counsel that two of the court’s notices were inadvertently routed to counsel’s spam folder constitutes an excusable law office failure … . Nor is there evidence in the record that counsel has engaged in a pattern of dilatory behavior … . Finally, plaintiff’s pleadings, along with the depositions of the witnesses, established a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Navarro v Joy Constr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05602, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: Here excusable law office failure explained plaintiff’s failure to appear at conferences or outline remaining discovery. The parties had already stipulated to restore the action to the calendar. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the action should have been granted. The parties’ stipulation should have been enforced, not ignored, by the judge.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT INQUIRING ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have allowed the defendant to explain the reason he was requesting new counsel:

Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the court denied his request for new counsel without making any inquiry, and without giving defendant any opportunity to explain the basis for his request (see People v McCummings, 124 AD3d 502, 502-03 [1st Dept 2015]; People v Rodriguez, 46 AD3d 396 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 844 [2007]). People v Resheroop, 2022 NY Slip Op 05606, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant asked for new counsel and the judge denied the request without asking for its basis. The appellate court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

 

,

WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING WAS COVERED ONLY BY CARDBOARD; AFTER FINISHING THE WORK, THE EMPLOYEE REPLACED THE CARDBOARD COVER; PLAINTIFF SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON THE CARDBOARD AND FELL INTO THE TANK; THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPINAL, 98 NY2D 140 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contractor’s (A&L’s) employee did not launch an instrument of harm by leaving the accident site as it was when the employee arrived to clean a sewage tank, the opening of which was covered only by cardboard. Plaintiff stepped on the cardboard and fell into the tank:

Supreme Court should have granted A&L summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it. Plaintiff was not a party to A&L’s contract to clean the sewage tank. Plaintiff argues that A&L may nevertheless be liable in tort because it failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its contractual duties and thereby launched a force or instrument of harm (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). However, this exception to the general rule that a contractual obligation does not give rise to tort liability to a third party is inapplicable where “the breach of contract consists merely in withholding a benefit . . . where inaction is at most a refusal to become an instrument for good” … . Thus, a defendant who neglects to make the accident site “safer — as opposed to less safe — than it was before” the defendant came upon the site is not liable pursuant to the Espinal exception … . …

By simply replacing the cardboard box cover already in place over the sewage tank after he completed his work, A&L’s employee returned the site to the condition in which he originally found it. Thus, he neglected to make the area safer, but did not affirmatively make the area less safe than it was when he first came upon it … . That A&L’s employee did not report the cardboard is immaterial because a third-party contractor’s awareness of a condition and failure to warn does not amount to launching an instrument of harm … . Skeete v Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05511, First Dept 10-4-22

Practice Point: A contractor will be liable to an injured person who is not a party to the contract if the contractor launches an instrument of harm which causes the injury. Here the contractor’s employee left the accident scene as it was before the employee started the job, replacing the cardboard which covered the opening to the tank which the employee cleaned. The contractor’s employee did not launch an instrument of harm by replacing the cardboard cover. The contractor was not liable to the plaintiff who stepped on the cardboard and fell into the tank.

 

,

ONLY THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT ENUMERATED IN VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (E) IS SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES; OTHER INJURY-CAUSING ACTIONS INVOLVING THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STANDARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that while parking in a “no standing” zone maybe subject to the “reckless disregard” standard for emergency vehicles, other injury-causing actions may not be exempt from the ordinary negligence standard:

“[T]he reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b)” … . “Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence” … . Here, although defendants established that they engaged in conduct covered by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b)(1) by parking in a “No Standing” area, there were, at a minimum, questions of fact whether the ambulance had its emergency lights and sirens activated as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(c). Taveras v Almodovar, 2022 NY Slip Op 05385, First Dept 9-29-22

Practice Point: Only the specific conduct enumerated in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 (e) is subject to the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for emergency vehicles. Other injury-causing actions involving the emergency vehicle (i.e. failure to activate emergency lights and sirens) are subject to the ordinary negligence standard.

 

, , , , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFFS-PHYSICIANS ALLEGED THE FORMS THE EMPLOYER REQUIRED THEM TO SIGN CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION (TO THE EMPLOYER) OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE DEMUTUALIZATION OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER WERE INVALID (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint by physicians against their employer/malpractice-insurance-policy-administrator stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and mutual mistake. The dispute centers on whether the physicians or the employer which paid the malpractice insurance premiums are/is entitled to the proceeds when the insurer (MLMIC) demutualized. The employer had the physicians sign forms consenting to distributing the proceeds to the employer. The physicians allege the consent forms are invalid:

Plaintiffs allege that the forms by which they authorized MLMIC to distribute their demutualization proceeds to defendant are invalid because defendant obtained them in breach of its fiduciary duty, by fraud, or due to mutual mistake. If these forms are invalid, then the demutualization proceeds belong to plaintiffs … .

Transactions between a fiduciary and beneficiary are voidable if the fiduciary acts in its own interest and does not fully disclose all material facts … . Defendant is alleged not only to have withheld the policyholder information statement from plaintiffs, but to have significantly misrepresented their contents for its own gain. These allegations, which are not conclusively refuted by the documentary evidence, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Fraud is another basis for rescinding the consent forms … . Plaintiffs also properly allege constructive fraud, because they were owed a fiduciary duty by defendant and so were “warranted to . . . relax the care and vigilance they would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances” … . …

Mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . For the purposes of this motion to dismiss, however, it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiffs were negligent … . Cordaro v AdvantageCare Physicians, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 05267, First Dept 9-27-22

Practice Point: The complaint adequately alleged the employer, which also served at the medical malpractice insurance policy administrator, breached a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiffs-physicians by requiring them to consent to the distribution (to the employer) of the proceeds of the demutualization of the medical malpractice insurance carrier. The complaint also sufficiently alleged fraud, constructive fraud and mutual-mistake causes of action.

 

, ,

THE INSURED MISREPRESENTED HER HOME ADDRESS AND THE INSURERS DISCLAIMED COVERAGE; THE CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE INSURERS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (UNDERWRITING MANUALS, RULES, BULLETINS) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MISREPRESENTATION WAS MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurers which disclaimed coverage did not demonstrate the insured’s misrepresentation of her address was material. The insurers’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he insurers filed this action for a declaration of no-coverage and an injunction barring defendant medical providers from seeking any no-fault reimbursement under the claimant’s automobile insurance policy. The insurers alleged that the claimant had intentionally and materially misrepresented her home address in procuring the policy, as the proper policy address was not the Wappingers Falls address she had stated, but rather, an address in the Bronx.

The insurers submitted undisputed evidence that the claimant misrepresented her address based on her testimony at the Examination Under Oath (EUO). However, the insurers failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the alleged misrepresentation as to the correct address was a material misrepresentation. The affidavit of the insurers’ underwriter is conclusory and not supported by relevant documentary evidence such as underwriting manuals, rules, or bulletins …  Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Valera, 2022 NY Slip Op 05277, First Dept 9-27-22

Practice Point: To disclaim insurance coverage based upon a misrepresentation by the insured, the insurer must demonstrate the misrepresentation was material. Here, at the summary judgment stage, the insurers’ conclusory affidavit, which was not supported by underwriting manuals, roles or bulletins, was not enough.

 

,

THE JUDGE ASKED THE ADMITTEDLY BIASED JUROR WHETHER HE COULD DISREGARD A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY IF HE FELT THE OFFICER WAS LYING AND THE JUROR SAID HE COULD; THE QUESTION AND ANSWER DID NOT PROVIDE AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE THE JUROR COULD RENDER A VERDICT SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s questions for the juror, who expressed a bias in favor of police officer, did not elicit an unequivocal assurance the juror could put aside the bias and render a verdict solely on the evidence:

The challenged panelist, who had many connections to law enforcement, stated “I’m definitely bias[ed] toward law enforcement, toward police officers. I know a lot of cops. If you ask me a plain question, I’ll say yes.” …

… [T]he court asked if the panelist could “evaluate the testimony,” and if a witness was “not telling the truth” and “happen[ed] to be a police officer,” would he “disregard that just because [his] best friend is a cop?” The court’s question was not properly framed to elicit an assurance of impartiality. When the panelist, somewhat confused by the court’s inquiry, replied, “No, if I’m understanding your question, I wouldn’t,” he did no more than confirm that in the event he actually found an officer’s testimony to be perjurious, the panelist would not overlook that fact because of his pro-police bias. The court’s next question — “You would be able to evaluate?” — and the panelist’s response that he “would be able to,” likewise fell short of the required express and unequivocal declaration … . “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another” … . People v Tate, 2022 NY Slip Op 05286, First Dept 9-27-22

Practice Point: Here the potential juror acknowledged his bias in favor of police officers. The judge asked the juror if he could ignore a police officer’s testimony if he felt the officer was lying and the juror said he could. The First Department did not view the question and answer as providing an unequivocal assurance the juror could put aside his bias and render a verdict solely on the evidence. Conviction reversed.

 

, ,

PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined many of the causes of action in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent, Rosa, was electrocuted when working on live electrical equipment. Rosa’s boss, Cuevas (the building manager), testified he told Rosa not to work on the live equipment until he returned with rubber insulation and shut down the power to the building. Decedent’s daughter, however, testified Cuevas told her Rosa had to do the work with the power on because there was an upcoming inspection. Cuevas’ statement was deemed admissible as a party admission and should have been considered by Supreme Court. The “party-admissions” argument was raised for the first time on appeal:

When “a party raises a legal issue for the first time on appeal, as long as the issue is determinative and the record on appeal is sufficient to permit review, this Court may consider the new argument” … . We may also consider this testimony in our discretion because [defendants] also relied on it in support of their summary judgment motion … . …

… [P]laintiff testified to postaccident conversations that Cuevas had with her when he visited Rosa in the hospital, when he admitted to plaintiff that Rosa had to perform the bus duct work without shutting down the electricity because of the imminently scheduled building inspection, so as not to inconvenience the tenants, and to avoid any complaints attendant to a service interruption, such as a lack of elevator service. Cuevas never denied either having those conversations with plaintiff in the hospital or making those statements…. . In any event, assuming hypothetically that these statements were inadmissible hearsay, they may still be considered as they are not the only evidence in this record that the electricity was not shut down when Rosa performed the duct work … . Rosa v 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 05144, First Dept 9-13-22

Practice Point: Party admissions are not hearsay. A legal issue (here “inadmissible hearsay” versus “party admission”) raised for the first time on appeal may be considered where, as here, the record is sufficient and the issue is determinative.

 

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT FROM A SHARED BATHROOM USED ONLY BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE COMPLAINANT; ASSAULT CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault second conviction, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined it was reversible error for the judge to refuse to instruct the jury that the defendant did not have a duty to retreat (re: the justification defense). There is no duty to retreat from one’s own dwelling. Here the incident took place in a portion of the housing complex used only by the defendant and the complainant:

Defendant and the complainant lived in a housing complex where they each had a separate room that gave them access to a shared bathroom to which no one else had access. The court should have granted the defense’s request for a jury instruction that defendant, who asserted a defense of justification, had no duty to retreat from the bathroom he shared with the complainant as a matter of law … .

… [T]his bathroom, unlike a hallway bathroom, was accessible only from the respective rooms of defendant and the complainant. As a matter of law, the shared bathroom was a part of defendant’s dwelling, notwithstanding that he shared it with the complainant, as opposed to a common area in the building. Therefore, under Penal Law § 35.15 (2) (a) (i), defendant had no duty to retreat before using deadly physical force to defend himself … .

… [T]he court’s inaccurate instruction that whether the incident took place in defendant’s dwelling depended on the extent to which defendant exercised exclusive possession and control over the area in question could have led the jury to erroneously conclude that the bathroom was not part of defendant’s dwelling because he shared it with the complainant and that therefore defendant had a duty to retreat. People v Delisme, 2022 NY Slip Op 05130, First Dept 9-6-22

Practice Point: In the context of the justification defense to an assault charge, a defendant does not have a duty to retreat from his own dwelling. Here the incident apparently took place in a bathroom used only by the defendant and the complainant. The bathroom was part of defendant’s own dwelling. The jury should have been instructed that defendant did not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force

 

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