You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

INSURANCE COVERAGE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE INJURED RESPONDENT RESIDED WITH HIS SON IN MAINE; RESPONDENT ALLEGED HE SPLIT HIS TIME BETWEEN RESIDING IN NEW YORK AND RESIDING WITH HIS SON; A PERSON MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE; A FRAMED-ISSUE HEARING WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a framed-issue hearing was required to determine whether respondent was entitled to coverage under the uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) provision of respondent’s son’s policy. Whether respondent is covered depends upon whether he resides with his son. Respondent alleged he splits his time between residing in New York and residing with his son in Maine. A person may have more than one residence:

The policy contained an uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement (SUM coverage) which defined an insured as, among other things, “1. You or any family member.” The policy defined “family member” as “a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.” * * *

The policy conditions the status of an insured relative on whether the relative resides with the named insured. Residency is established by a degree of permanency and an intention to remain, and a person may have more than one residence … . Here, both parties have proposed that it would be reasonable to hold a framed issue hearing, and Elliott [respondent] has raised sufficient facts to warrant one, including that he splits his time between Maine and New York, spends a portion of each year at 22 Huntress Street [Maine] where he keeps personal items and has a bedroom, furnishes the house and landscapes the yard jointly with Zachary [respondent’s son], and holds the only mortgage on the property. Matter of Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. v Barowitz, 2022 NY Slip Op 05131, First Dept 9-6-22

Practice Point: Here whether the injuries to respondent were covered by an uninsured/underinsured motorist provision depended upon whether respondent resided with his son in Maine. A person may have more than one residence. Respondent alleged he resided both in New York and in Maine with his son. A hearing to was ordered to determine whether respondent in fact “resided” in both Maine and New York.

 

,

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE; THE PROVISION RELIED ON BY THE EMPLOYER TO AVOID PAYING DEFENDANT’S EARNED SALARY UPON TERMINATION APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED (ALLOWING PAYMENT TO BE DEFERRED WHEN AVAILABLE FUNDS ARE INSUFFICIENT); A DIFFERENT PROVISION REQUIRING PAYMENT IN CASH APPLIED TO TERMINATED EMPLOYEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the employment contract between Drone and defendant obligated Drone to pay defendant the salary which remained unpaid upon defendant’s termination. Drone unsuccessfully argued the provision of the contract which allowed cash payment of salaries to be deferred when there were insufficient funds applied only to persons who were employed, not to persons whose employment was terminated:

Drone claimed in opposition that it did not have to pay defendant his salary in cash, but had the option to pay defendant his wages in (worthless and unmarketable) Drone stock, relying on paragraph 3 in the employment agreement, governing compensation during the “employment period,” which states, “the Company may elect to . . . defer any cash payment until it has sufficient funds to do so.” Drone, however, ignores paragraph 5(b) of the employment agreement, applicable post-termination, which states that “[i]n the event that [defendant’s] employment with the Company is terminated . . . the Company shall pay or grant [defendant] any earned but unpaid salary, bonus, and Options through [defendant’s] final date of employment with the Company, and the Company shall have no further obligations to [defendant]” … . Read as a whole, the employment agreement makes clear that while payment of defendant’s salary could be deferred for lack of funds while he remained in Drone’s employ, “all earned but unpaid salary” was payable to defendant, unconditionally, upon termination of employment … . The finality of its language reflects an intent that the parties promptly settle up affairs within a reasonable time … . Drone USA, Inc. v Antonelos, 2022 NY Slip Op 05129, First Dept 9-6-22

Practice Point: Contracts must be read as a whole. Here the provision relied upon by the employer to avoid paying a former employee’s salary applied only to current employees (allowing payment to be deferred when there are insufficient funds available.) Another provision requiring payment to terminated employees was the operative provision.

 

,

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” STANDARD IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE PURSUANT THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN “NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN V BRUEN” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the recent US Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US _, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022] required that petitioner’s application for a pistol permit be granted. New York’s “proper cause” standard is no longer applicable:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination by the New York City Police Department denying an application to renew a business carry handgun license. Supreme Court denied and dismissed the petition on the ground that the Police Department had a rational basis to deny the renewal of a business carry license where petitioner’s application did not establish “proper cause” within the meaning of Penal Law § 400.00 (see 38 RCNY 5-03). Supreme Court also found petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated.

We are constrained by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US _, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022]) which mandates the grant of this CPLR article 78 petition. Specifically, in Bruen , the United States Supreme Court held that denial of a license applications for failing to satisfy New York’s “proper cause” standard, under which the applicants had to demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, was unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects an individual’s fundamental right to keep a firearm, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which makes this right equally applicable throughout the states.  Matter of Callahan v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05057, First Dept 8-30-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US _, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022] the “proper cause” standard for issuing a pistol permit no longer applies. Petitioner’s application should have been granted.

 

,

IN THIS BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN COLLISION CASE WHERE THERE WAS A VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT, DEFENDANT’S EXPERT DEMONSTRATED, USING FACTS IN THE RECORD, THAT DEFENDANT BICYCLIST HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, WAS TRAVELLING AT A REASONABLE SPEED, AND WAS NOT ABLE TO AVOID THE COLLISION WHEN PLAINTIFF STEPPED OFF THE CURB; PLANTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION TO THE CONTRARY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS IN THE RECORD; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this bicycle-pedestrian collision case should have been granted. Thee was a video of the incident. Defendant had the green light when plaintiff stepped off the curb into the bike lane. Defendant’s expert presented evidence defendant was travelling at a reasonable speed and could not have avoided striking the plaintiff without striking an obstruction or entering a traffic lane. Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions that defendant was travelling at an excessive speed and could have stopped before striking plaintiff were not based upon facts in the record:

… [P]laintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. There is no evidence that defendant operated his bicycle at an excessive rate of speed, in a negligent manner, or without due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1180(a), 1146. Plaintiff attempts to raise an issue of fact through her expert, who opines, without any factual basis in the record, and in a conclusory and speculative manner, that defendant operated his bicycle at an excessive speed when compared to the speed of the three other bicyclists, and that in the three seconds (at most) that defendant had to react from the moment he is seen entering the screen, he could have slowed down, stopped, or maneuvered his bicycle to go around plaintiff to avoid the collision, or to make the impact substantially less severe.

Opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record. An expert cannot speculate, guess, or reach their conclusion by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence …  The opinion must be supported either by facts disclosed by the evidence or by facts known to the expert personally. It is essential that the facts upon which the opinion is based be established, or fairly inferable, from the evidence … . Min Zhong v Matranga, 2022 NY Slip Op 05063, First Dept 8-30-22

Practice Point: Expert opinion which is not supported by facts in the record will not raise a question of fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANT TRUSTEES WERE WORTHLESS BECAUSE OF DEFENDANTS’ BREACHES OF CONTRACTUAL, FIDUCIARY AND STATUTORY DUTIES; MOST (BUT NOT ALL) OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE DENIED BASED UPON CONTRACT-INTERPRETATION PRINCIPLES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this residential-mortgage-backed-securities case, over an extensive two-justice partial dissent, determined certain post-Event of Default breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims should have been dismissed, and the pre-Event of Default document defect repurchase enforcement claims should not have been dismissed. “Plaintiffs purchased residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) certificates issued by RMBS trusts for which defendants served as the trustees. In six separate actions brought in May 2016, plaintiffs allege that their investments are almost worthless as a result of defendants’ breaches of their contractual, fiduciary, and statutory duties.” The majority decision focuses on refuting the arguments in the partial dissent, resulting in a comprehensive overview of contract-interpretation-law which is worth reading but cannot be fairly summarized here. Generally, Supreme Court’s denial of most of the defendants’ motions to dismiss was affirmed. IKB Intl., S.A. v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 05058, First Dept 8-30-22

Practice Point: The plaintiffs in this residential-mortgage-backed-securities action alleged the certificates issued by the defendant trustees were almost worthless as a result of the defendants’ breach of contract and fiduciary and statutory duties. Most of the plaintiffs’ causes of action survived defendants’ motions to dismiss. The decision includes a comprehensive discussion of the law of contract-interpretation which is worth consulting.

 

,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PETITION ALLEGING RESPONDENT DISINFECTANT-DISTRIBUTOR ENGAGED IN PRICE GOUGING AT THE OUTSET OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE CONTROLLING STATUTE, GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 396-R, IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney general’s (AG’s) petition alleging that the respondent distributor (Quality King Distributors, Inc) engaged in price gouging should not have been dismissed. The petition alleged Quality King raised the price of Lysol, a disinfectant, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in violation of General Business Law 396-r. The First Department rejected the argument the relevant statutory provisions were void for vagueness:

In the special proceeding underlying this appeal, petitioner Attorney General of the State of New York accused respondent Quality King Distributors, Inc. of engaging in price gouging in contravention of General Business Law § 396-r based on its sale of certain Lysol products in the first four months of 2020. … [W]e reverse Supreme Court’s order denying the AG’s petition and, in effect, dismissing the proceeding, and remand the matter for further proceedings. * * *

Employing the February 26, 2020 onset date, our review of the purchase and sale data discloses several instances in which the amount charged to a particular customer in a particular transaction represents, prima facie, a gross disparity between the price of the Lysol product and the price at which it was sold by Quality King in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the abnormal disruption of the market. …

Thus, the AG’s evidence demonstrated, prima facie, that Quality King sold the Lysol product at unconscionably excessive prices on at least several occasions. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Quality King Distribs., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05010, First Dept 8-23-22

Practice Point: The petition sufficiently alleged the distributor of Lysol, a disinfectant, engaged in price-gouging in violation of General Business Law 396-r at the outset of the COVD-19 pandemic.

 

THE SMALL CONCRETE PEBBLES UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AND WERE NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code did not apply to the small concrete pebbles on which plaintiff allegedly slipped when attempting to install a heavy glass divider:

When plaintiff stepped forward to place the glass into the track, he stepped onto “minute” pebbles near the track. His right foot slipped forward a few inches, but he did not fall. Plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries, not only because of pebbles he slipped on, but also because of [his employer’s] decision to remove one worker from his team when he undertook to move the glass.

… Neither of the Industrial Code regulations that plaintiff relies on apply to the accident. The floor was not in “a slippery condition” nor were the pebbles a “foreign substance which may cause slippery footing” within the meaning of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) … . Section 23-1.7 (e)(2) of the Industrial Code also does not apply as this was not a passageway, within the meaning of the regulation. In any event, the pebbles were debris that were an integral part of the construction work. The integral to the work defense applies to things and conditions that are an integral part of the construction, not just to the specific task a plaintiff may be performing at the time of the accident … . Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04941, First Dept 8-16-22

Practice Point: Small pebble-sized pieces of concrete are an integral part of the construction and therefore do not constitute a slippery “foreign substance” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. The Labor Law 241(6) action should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS BY CERTIFICATEHOLDERS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES TRUSTS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, dismissed the remaining actions brought by certificateholders against the trustee (US Bank National Association) for residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) trusts. The opinion is fact-specific, based upon contract language, and cannot be fairly summarized here:

This case involves residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Usually, this type of case is filed by an RMBS trustee because they are generally the only party with standing to assert the trust’s right to compel repurchase of defective loans and to take action against the parties responsible for the improper servicing of loans. Here, however, plaintiffs, as certificateholders of nine RMBS trusts, bring this action for breach of contract against defendant U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee of the nine RMBS trusts, for failure to carry out its alleged duties as trustee in response to the contractual breaches by other transaction parties. The main issues raised in this appeal are: (1) whether the governing trust documents imposed contractual obligations on the trustee … to identify and take action before an event of default (EOD) arose (pre-EOD claims); and (2) whether plaintiffs may rely on the servicers’ annual assessments and the trustee’s letter to the servicer to satisfy the “written notice” element of the claim that the trustee breached its contractual obligations to take action as a “prudent” trustee after an EOD arose (post-EOD claims). Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 04886, First Dept 8-9-22

Practice Point: Here breach of contract actions by certificateholders against the trustee for residential mortgage backed securities trusts were dismissed.

 

, ,

FAILURE TO ALLEGE THAT “BUT FOR” DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s legal malpractice complaint was properly dismissed for failing to allege that “but for” the attorney’s negligence plaintiff would have prevailed:

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action in the original complaint because he failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed in the underlying action … . Plaintiff’s citation to a ruling in the underlying action denying dismissal of his fraud claim, among others, did not, without more, show that he would have prevailed in the underlying action had defendant timely commenced it by naming the proper parties in the original complaint … . Markov v Barrows, 2022 NY Slip Op 04780, First Dept 8-2-22

Practice Point: To sufficiently allege legal malpractice, the complaint must allege that “but for” the attorney’s negligence plaintiff would have prevailed.

 

, ,

WHERE DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS INNOCENCE AT TRIAL, HAS A PENDING APPEAL AND ASSERTS HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE SORA PROCEEDING, THE SORA COURT SHOULD NOT ASSESS POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing the SORA court, in a matter of first impression, determined that where defendant asserted his innocence at trial, has a pending appeal, and has asserted his right to avoid self-incrimination, he should not be assessed points under risk factor 12 for failing to take responsibility for the relevant offense:

… [W]e conclude that a defendant who has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and has a direct appeal pending should not be assessed points under risk factor 12. Considering this conclusion, and in view of defendant’s consistent refusal to incriminate himself and the pending status of his direct appeal, the assessment of 10 points under this factor amounts to a violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. * * *

… [D]efendant was forced to choose between, on the one hand, exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and being assessed points under risk factor 12, and, on the other, admitting responsibility for the acts that led to his conviction after so far maintaining his innocence and risking that those admissions would be used against him in a potential retrial or form the basis of a perjury charge. Ultimately, the penalty imposed on defendant when presented with this choice is that he was assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 and adjudicated a risk level two sex offender.

The difference between a level one and level two sex offender adjudication is substantial and illustrative of why the penalty is so great as to compel self-incrimination. If defendant were classified as a level one sex offender, he would be required to register annually for a period of 20 years from the date of initial registration (see Correction Law § 168-h), but his personal information would not be listed in a publicly available database. However, as a level two sex offender, defendant would be required to register annually for life (see Correction Law § 168-h), and his photograph, address, place of employment, physical description, age, and distinctive markings would be included in a public database (see Correction Law § 168-q). People v Krull. 2022 NY Slip Op 04783, First Dept 8-2-22

Practice Point: Here defendant asserted his innocence at trial, had a pending appeal and asserted his right against self-incrimination in the SORA proceedings. The SORA court should not have assessed points under risk factor 12 for failure to take responsibility for the offense.

 

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