You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

A DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA; ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE APPROPRIATE DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Wormser’s) action for breach of the forum selection clause seeking attorney’s fees could go ahead. The defendant’s (L’Oreal’s) New Jersey action had been dismissed “without prejudice,” which was not a determination on the merits, and therefore Wormser’s action was not precluded by the res judicata doctrine:

Plaintiff (Wormser) asserts a claim for breach of the forum selection clause contained in the parties’ agreement, which requires disputes to be brought before the courts of New York City, and for attorneys’ fees incurred in the actions that defendant (L’Oréal) brought against it in New Jersey. After the New Jersey court had dismissed its complaint “with prejudice within the jurisdiction of New Jersey,” L’OrÉal commenced an action against Wormser in Supreme Court, New York County. Subsequently, a New Jersey appellate court amended the New Jersey trial court’s orders to make the dismissal “without prejudice” … , and Wormser brought this action.

Wormser’s claim is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the dismissal was without prejudice by the New Jersey appellate court and therefore was not a final determination on the merits ,,, ,

Wormser’s claim for attorneys’ fees may proceed, as “damages may be obtained for breach of a forum selection clause, and an award of such damages does not contravene the American rule that deems attorneys’ fees a mere incident of litigation” … . Wormser Corp. v L’Oréal USA, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03093, First Dept 5-10-22

Practice Point: A dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination on the merits and is not therefore subject to res judicata.

Practice Point: Attorney’s fees are properly demanded as damages in an action for breach of a forum selection clause.

 

, ,

PETITIONERS. RELATIVES OF PERSONS IN THE NYS DNA DATABASE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE RESPONDENTS’ REGULATIONS ALLOWING THE RELEASE OF “FAMILIAL DNA MATCH” INFORMATION LINKING DNA FROM A CRIME SCENE TO A FAMILY, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL; THE REGULATIONS WERE BASED ON SOCIAL POLICY AND THEREFORE EXCEEDED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE RESPONDENT AGENCIES; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE REGULATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court, over a full-fledged two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the respondent agencies exceeded their regulatory powers when they authorized the release of so-called “familial DNA” information to be used as a possible lead for identifying the perpetrator of a crime. In the absence of a DNA “match” or a “partial match” a “familial match” may indicate the perpetrator has a familial relationship with someone in the DNA database. A crucial threshold question was whether the petitioners, relatives of persons whose genetic profiles are in the New York State DNA database, had standing to contest the familial DNA regulations. The dissenters argued the petitioners did not have standing. The majority concluded the basis for the familial DNA regulations was primarily social policy, and therefore the regulations were legislative, rather than administrative, in nature:

Each petitioner’s brother has genetic information stored in the DNA databank. Neither petitioner has been asked or mandated to provide DNA for comparison. Because they are law abiding citizens, neither petitioner knows if they have been targeted for investigation as a result of a familial DNA search, but they harbor great concern and anxiety that they might be investigated for no other reason than that they share family genetics with a convicted criminal … . * * *

We are not required to determine whether respondents made a good or beneficial policy decision. The fact that the decisions respondents made are by their very nature policy driven, greatly favors a conclusion that they were made in excess of respondents’ authority. Matter of Stevens v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 2022 NY Slip Op 03062, First Dept 5-5-22

Practice Point: Relatives of persons in the NYS DNA database had standing to challenge the regulations issued by the respondent agencies allowing the release of “familial DNA match” information linking DNA from a crime scene to a family, not an individual.

Practice Point: The “familial DNA match” regulations were deemed to be rooted in social policy, which is the realm of the legislature, and therefore the promulgation of the regulations exceeded the agencies’ powers.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the releases were signed by plaintiff because of fraud, duress and/or mutual mistake. The facts are not described. Apparently plaintiff was injured at work and he alleged that he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t sign the releases:

“A release, even though properly executed, may nonetheless be void. Where fraud or duress in the procurement of a release is alleged, a motion to dismiss should be denied” … . Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Selina Maddock, a lawyer, was sent by their employer Navillus to secure plaintiff’s signature on the release, before he retained counsel, and made both the promise that he would have a job if he signed the releases, and the implicit threat that he would not have a job in the future if he failed to sign. He further alleged that Maddock advised plaintiff that he did not need to consult counsel and misrepresented to plaintiff that he was only releasing claims against his employer, Navillus. Consistent with this, plaintiff testified that he did not understand that he was releasing anyone besides his employer. Furthermore, “a mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release”; here, while defendants argue that plaintiff is merely mistaken as to the sequelae of a known injury, plaintiff raises a factual issue as to whether the additional injuries he claims to suffer from were a sequelae of his right knee injury. Forcing a Hobbesian choice on injured workers to accept a small settlement or else lose their job before they can ascertain the nature and scope of their injury is contrary to the strong public policy of New York state to protect injured workers, as reflected in the Labor Law…. . Dolcimascolo v 701 7th Prop. Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02944, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was apparently injured at work. A lawyer for his employer approached him about signing releases. Plaintiff signed, allegedly because he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t. Therefore there was a question of fact about whether fraud, duress or mutual mistake invalidated the releases.

 

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE SCAFFOLDING SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED BY SWING, A SUBCONTRATOR, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST SWING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SWING WAS NOT A CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, OR A CONTRACTOR’S OR OWNER’S STATUTORY AGENT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against Swing, the company which constructed  the scaffolding, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff fell when, instead of using the scaffold walkway system, he attempted to descend from some scaffolding pipes to the wooden walkway and a wooden plank broke:

The lower court should have dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims as against Swing, the scaffold system subcontractor to general contractor 4 Star, because it is undisputed that Swing was not a contactor or owner within the meaning of the statutes. Nor was it a contractor or owner’s statutory agent. Although it contractually retained the right to reenter the premises and inspect the scaffold system, Swing did not have any employees on site during 4 Star’s work, and it did not inspect the scaffold system while it was in place … . For all intents and purposes, once Swing constructed the scaffold system, it returned to the premises only to deliver supplies and to disassemble the scaffold system at the end of the project. Guevara-Ayala v Trump Palace/Parc LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03049, First Dept 5-5-22

Practice Point: Here the subcontractor which constructed the scaffolding from which plaintiff fell was not a contractor or owner, or a contractor’s or owner’s statutory agent within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6). Therefore the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against the subcontractor should have been dismissed.

 

PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE EDGE OF A BATHTUB WHEN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL A SHOWER-CURTAIN ROD; THE EDGE OF THE TUB WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he needed to stand on the rim of a bathtub to install a shower-curtain rod. He hit his head and fell when attempting to step up on the rim of the tub. The defendants argued the installation could have been done from floor level. There was no room in the bathroom for an A-frame ladder:

The motion court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his section 240(1) claim. Plaintiff established prima facie that he was entitled to judgment by evidence that he suffered harm that “flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity” when he fell from the edge of the bathtub, which served as the functional equivalent of a scaffold or ladder … . The evidence showed that there was insufficient room inside the bathroom for plaintiff to use an A-frame ladder and that plaintiff instead was forced to reach the elevated work area by standing on the edge of the bathtub in order to install the shower-curtain rods. Plaintiff testified that standing on the edge of the tub was necessary because he otherwise would lack the necessary leverage to tighten the screws with an Allen wrench.

In opposition, [defendants] failed to raise an issue of fact. They rely on an affidavit by their biomechanical expert, Mr. Bove, who opined that plaintiff’s overhead reach was sufficient to perform the task while standing on the ground or inside the bathtub. Bove’s initial affidavit, however, ignored plaintiff’s testimony that he needed the height in order to have leverage so that he would have enough strength to tighten the screws with the Allen wrench. Vitucci v Durst Pyramid LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02968, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff fell attempting to stand on the edge of a bathtub to install a shower-curtain rod. The majority concluded the edge of the bathtub was the equivalent of a scaffold and plaintiff’s fall was covered under Labor Law 240(1). Two dissenters argued the job could have been performed from ground level.

 

,

THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the fraud cause of action was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action and therefore should not have been dismissed:

The fraud claim is not duplicative of the contract claim … , this is not a case where “the only fraud alleged” was the defendant’s “unkept promise to perform certain of its preexisting obligations under the parties’ contract” … . Rather, plaintiff alleges, “Whenever ADP’s services for Plaintiff[] proved to be deficient, ADP would purport to deal with the problem and then misrepresent to Plaintiff[] that the problem had been fixed, when . . . it had not.” “Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” … .

Moreover, plaintiff seeks at least some damages on its fraud claim that it does not seek on its contract claim … . IS Chrystie Mgt. LLC v ADP, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02950, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Fraud causes of action are often dismissed as duplicative of breach-of-contract causes of action. Here the fraud cause of action should not have been dismissed because the misrepresentations concerned present facts, not a future intent to perform. In addition, the complaint sought damages for fraud that were not sought for breach of contract.

 

, ,

A CORPORATE OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NONFEASANCE (DOING NOTHING), AS OPPOSED MISFEASANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the individual defendant, John Milevoi, an officer or shareholder of the  property management company, defendant M&L Milevoi Management, must be dismissed. Plaintiff alleged a leak in the ceiling of her apartment caused her slip and fall:

The complaint should be dismissed against the individual defendant John Milevoi, because there is no allegation that his liability stems from an act of misfeasance or malfeasance, as opposed to nonfeasance. A corporate officer or shareholder may not be held personally liable for a failure to act … . Defendant owner and defendant management company, on the other hand, have not established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. De Barcacel v 1015 Concourse Owners Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02869, First Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: A corporate officer or shareholder cannot be personally liable for nonfeasance (doing nothing), as opposed to misfeasance. The complaint against the corporate officer or shareholder here was dismissed. But the complaint against the corporation was not. The corporation is a property management company and plaintiff’s slip and fall complaint alleged there was a water leak in her apartment.

 

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the elevator which descended and crushed plaintiff’s decedent, who had entered the shaft, was not a “falling object” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1). Therefore the complaint against defendants must be dismissed:

Plaintiff’s decedent, an elevator mechanic, entered an elevator shaft on the lobby level, under an elevator that he had sent to one of the floors above. After the shaft doors closed, the call button was pressed, and the elevator descended to the lobby, crushing the decedent. The parties agree that the elevator was working normally, in the “automatic” setting, at the time of the accident.

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim must be dismissed because the elevator did not “fall” as a result of the force of gravity but descended in automatic mode, as it was designed to do … . Luna v Brodcom W. Dev. Co. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02873, First Dept 4-28-22

​Practice Point: In order to be covered under Labor Law 240(1), this elevator accident must have been the result of the elevator “falling.” Because the elevator was descending normally when it struck and killed plaintiff, the complaint was dismissed.

 

PLAINTIFF’S FALLING INTO A HOLE ON THE PREMISES AFTER HIS TRUCK WAS LOADED WAS NOT THE RESULT OF “USE” OF THE TRUCK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s falling into a hole after he was finished loading his truck did not result from his “use” of the truck within the meaning of the applicable insurance policies:

While “use” of an automobile includes loading and unloading , an accident does not arise from the “use” of an automobile merely because it occurs during the loading or unloading process, but rather “must be the result of some act or omission related to the use of the vehicle” … . Tishman Constr. Corp. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 02886, First Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s falling into a hole on the premises after he had loaded his truck did not result from “use” of the truck within the meaning of the insurance policies.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DANCER STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DANCER AND THEIR EMPLOYER, THE NEW YORK CITY BALLET (NYCB), IN CONNECTION WITH INTIMATE IMAGES ALLEGEDLY DISCLOSED BY THE DEFENDANT DANCER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff, Waterbury, stated causes of action for: (1) violation of the NYC Administrative Code provision which prohibits the disclosure of intimate images without consent; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) negligent hiring, supervision and retention. The plaintiff (Waterbury) was a dancer with the defendant New York City Ballet (NYCB). The defendant Finlay, who allegedly disclosed the images, was also a NYCB dancer. The negligent hiring cause of action is against NYCB as the defendant-dancer’s employer:

Waterbury’s allegations that images depict her engaged in sexual activity suffice (see Administrative Code § 10-180 [a] …). Construing the complaint liberally and according Waterbury “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” … , the allegations that Finlay shared images of her breasts are also sufficient (see Administrative Code § 10-180 [a] …). …

Waterbury also sufficiently alleges that Finlay intended to cause her economic, physical, or substantial emotional harm. “A result is intended if the act is done with the purpose of accomplishing such a result or with knowledge that to a substantial certainty such a result will ensue” … . …

Waterbury alleges that NYCB dancers and others affiliated with NYCB shared images and commentary regarding other women and that NYCB knew that Finlay and other dancers were degrading and exploiting young women. She asserts that NYCB implicitly encouraged this behavior. Waterbury states that NYCB knew of Finlay’s sexual conduct towards young women and took no steps to prevent such conduct. Waterbury v New York City Ballet, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02890, First Dept 4-28-22

​Practice Point: The NYC Administrative Code prohibits the disclosure of intimate images without consent. Here the complaint stated a cause of action based on an alleged violation of that code provision.

 

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