You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS LANDLORD-TENANT ACTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY A CHANGE IN THE LAW BASED UPON A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ISSUED A MONTH AFTER THE STIPULATION; A “MISTAKE OF LAW” DOES NOT INVALIDATE A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a stipulation of settlement in open court was valid, despite a Court of Appeals decision which ruled the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) cannot be applied retroactively. The retroactive application of the HSTPA (to the stipulation) was deemed a “mistake of law” which is not a ground for invalidating a stipulation:

On … the date of trial, the court facilitated settlement negotiations and the parties placed the material terms of their settlement on the record. “The in-court oral stipulation made here . . . evidences [defendant]’s unconditional agreement, through authorized counsel, to settle” for a sum certain of $7.5 million, provide leases at specific monthly rents for plaintiffs still living in the building, and enter into a confidentiality agreement … . “[W]hen the transcript . . . is read in its entirety, it is clear that what was spread upon the record was an oral stipulation and not simply an agreement to agree” … . “The fact that it is necessary for the parties to exchange general releases and execute a confidentiality agreement does not render the agreement invalid”… , nor does the parties’ representation that they would “execute formal settlement papers” demonstrate that there was no agreement on material terms … . …

We reject defendant’s contention that the decision of the Court of Appeals … , issued one month afterwards, requires that the settlement be vacated. While that decision held that the retroactive application of the [HSTPA] would violate due process …, previous interpretations to the contrary constituted “a mistake as to the law,” which is insufficient grounds for vacating a stipulation … . Nieborak v W54-7 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01397, First Dept 3-3-22

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SURGEON’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED; PLAINTIFF LOST SIGHT IN HER RIGHT EYE AFTER CATARACT-REMOVAL SURGERY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined the defendant’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. Plaintiff lost sight in her right eye after cataract-removal surgery. The opinion describes the surgeries and the theories presented by the experts in great detail:

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff is required to show that the defendant deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that the deviation is the proximate cause of her injuries. A defendant’s negligence is the proximate cause when it is a substantial factor in the events that produced the injury … .. * * *

The jury, which is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, is entitled to assess his credibility and decide what weight it will give to his testimony … .. Great deference is accorded to the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses … . * * *

The documentary evidence and the testimony of all the experts created factual and credibility issues that were properly determined by the jury … . If the resolution of the case turns on the evaluation of conflicting testimony of expert witnesses, the resolution of such a conflict rests with the jury and not the court … . The conclusions reached by the jury should not be overturned as against the weight of the evidence unless “there is simply no valid line of reasoning, and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury” … . Rozon v Schottenstein, 2022 NY Slip Op 01278, First Dept 3-1-22

 

, ,

LESSOR OF THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE REAR-END COLLISION WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT; SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEARCH THE RECORD AND GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVEN THOUGH NO MOTION HAD BEEN MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Bancorp, the lessor of the vehicle leased by Fordham and driven by Fajerman, was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case pursuant to the Graves Amendment. The First Department noted Supreme Court had the authority to search the record and award summary judgment in the absence of a motion:

Bancorp’s request to search the record and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it under the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106) should have been granted. “On a motion for summary judgment, the court may search the record and, if warranted, grant summary relief even in the absence of a cross motion” … . “Under the Graves Amendment, the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held vicariously liable ‘for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if — (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner)'” … . Here, the commercial lease agreement submitted by Bancorp, as well as the affidavit of Erika Caesar, Chief Diversity Officer of Assistant General Counsel for Bancorp, clearly establish that Bancorp, a commercial lessor of motor vehicles, had leased the vehicle that Fajerman was driving, to defendant Fordham. The commercial lease further establishes that Fordham was responsible for the maintenance and repairs for the vehicle during the period of the lease and during the time in which the accident occurred. Additionally, plaintiff did not allege any mechanical defects in the subject vehicle, and Fajerman also stated in her affidavit that the car did not have any mechanical defects. As such, Bancorp is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the Graves Amendment … . Kalair v Fajerman, 2022 NY Slip Op 01244, First Dept 2-24-22

 

, ,

THE BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; THE APPEAL FROM AN ORDER WHICH WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A MOTION ON NOTICE MUST BE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt which is too comprehensive and detailed to fairly summarize here. determined: (1) the cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action; and (2) an appeal from a supplemental order which was not the product of a motion on notice must be dismissed:

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “embraces a pledge that neither party shall do anything that will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract” … , and is breached when a party acts in a manner that deprives the other party of the benefits of the contract (id.). Generally, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of the contract itself … . Therefore, a separate cause of action for breach of the covenant cannot be maintained where, as here, “it is premised on the same conduct that underlies the breach of contract cause of action and is intrinsically tied to the damages allegedly resulting from a breach of the contract” … . Because a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of the contract itself, plaintiffs may press their theory that defendants acted in derogation of the covenant in conjunction with their cause of action for breach of the license agreements … . We note that to the extent defendants were entitled to exercise discretion in the manner in which they performed their obligations … , they were, under the covenant (and, by natural extension, under the license agreement itself) prohibited from acting arbitrarily, irrationally, or in bad faith … . …

Defendants’ appeal from the supplemental order is dismissed because that order was not the product of a motion on notice (see CPLR 2214); rather, the supplemental order was issued in response to an inquiry from counsel seeking clarity regarding the court’s decision and order determining the summary judgment motions (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). Parlux Fragrances, LLC v S. Carter Enters., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01250, First Dept 2-24-22

 

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL BUT STATED IN HER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE SLIPPED ON ICE; THE AFFIDAVIT CREATED A FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff created only a feigned issue of fact in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case:

In this action in which plaintiff sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on the sidewalk owned by defendant, her affidavit that she slipped on ice on the sidewalk contradicted her earlier deposition testimony that she did not know what she slipped on, and thus created only a feigned issue of fact, which was insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion … .

Plaintiff’s decision to walk on the outside of a shoveled path in front of the building that had been cleared of snow and ice was the sole proximate cause of her accident … . Polanco v Durgaj, 2022 NY Slip Op 01258, First Dept 2-24-22

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS STATED CLAIMS FOR TENANT HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY, WATER, HEAT AND VENTILATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-tenants stated claims for tenant (statutory) harassment, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages in connection with failure to provide electricity, water, heat and ventilation:

The complaint states a cause of action for harassment under Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-2005 (d) and 27-2115 (m) … . Namely, it sufficiently alleges that defendants failed to provide essential services, including electricity, water, heat, and ventilation, resulting in violations of the Housing Maintenance Code, and that that failure was calculated to and did cause plaintiffs to vacate their apartment … . …

Defendants do not oppose the reinstatement of the claims for private nuisance or intentional infliction of emotional distress, opting to litigate those claims on the merits. However, contrary to defendants’ contention, punitive damages may be appropriate under both causes of action if the alleged acts are shown to be intentional or malicious … . Carlson v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-22-22

 

, ,

WILLIAMS, THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SLOWING DOWN FOR A WORK CREW AHEAD; THE WILLIAMS CAR WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A POLICE CAR PURSUING ANOTHER VEHICLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. A police officer pursuing another vehicle rear-ended the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger as the driver (Williams) was slowing down for a work crew:

Williams’s evidence in support of his motion demonstrated prima facie that he was operating his vehicle in a lawful, reasonable manner given the circumstances on the expressway at the time, and that he was not otherwise culpable in causing the police car to strike the rear of his vehicle. The burden having shifted, plaintiff and the City defendants each failed to offer evidence as would raise a factual issue regarding Williams’s comparable negligence in the cause of the accident … . The City defendants failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for rear-ending Williams’s vehicle, and the claim that the rear-ended vehicle stopped short, standing alone, is insufficient as a nonnegligent explanation for an accident … . Regardless of whether the actions of the police in this incident are to be considered under the reckless standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, the nonliability of Williams, given the unrefuted evidence of his nonculpable role in this accident, remains unchanged … . Grant v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 01121, First Dept 2-22-22

 

, ,

THE TERM “ECONOMIC SECURITY” IN THE NYU FACULTY HANDBOOK DID NOT PROHIBIT A POLICY (THE “REF” POLICY) TYING A TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS’ SALARY-REDUCTION TO THE AMOUNT OF GRANTS PROCURED IN A GIVEN YEAR; THE REF POLICY WAS NOT A DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE; A SPECIFIC SALARY FIGURE IN A TENURED FACULTY MEMBER’S CONTRACT, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE REF POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice OIng, modifying Supreme Court, determined: (1) the term “economic security” in the faculty handbook was prefatory language that did not prohibit the university (NYU) from tying salary reductions for tenured faculty to the amount of grant-money procured by a faculty member (the REF policy); (2) the salary reductions were not part of disciplinary procedure; and (3) the provision in the contract with one of the faculty members, Samuels, setting his salary at a specific amount prohibited the salary reductions tied to grants as to him:

Assuming that the term “economic security” gives rise to contractual rights, we reject the argument advanced by the Professors and amici curiae that “economic security” is an ambiguous term of art and that custom and usage in academia define it as prohibiting retroactive salary reductions pursuant to such policies as the REF Policy. * * *

A faculty member’s failure to comply with the REF Policy is simply not conduct that is subject to discipline. * * *

We find that NYU breached the terms of the “2001 Contract” when it reduced Professor Samuels’s salary pursuant to the REF Policy and that he is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Monaco v New York Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 01125, First Dept 2-22-22

 

THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING WAS INSECURE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHETHER THERE WAS SAFETY EQUIPMENT WHICH WAS NOT USED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE IT, IS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. There were no witnesses to plaintiff’s scaffold-fall. Plaintiff testified the unsecured scaffold moved when he started using the chipping gun and the unsecured plywood on which he was standing caused him to lose his balance. The fact that there may have been scaffold railings available and the evidence plaintiff was instructed to use the railings did not defeat summary judgment because comparative negligence is not part of the analysis:

The purpose of Labor Law § 240 (1) “is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor. . . instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident” … . Thus, the statute imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide “devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to” those individuals performing the work … . “Under Labor Law § 240 (1) it is conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a plaintiff’s injury) to occupy the same ground as a plaintiff’s sole proximate cause for the injury” … . Therefore, if a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it … . * * * [E]ven if there were evidence that adequate safety devices were readily available at the work site and that plaintiff knew he was expected to use them, it would not render plaintiff the sole cause of the accident, because the unsecured scaffold with unlevel, uneven, and unsecured floor planks initially caused him to lose his balance and fall …”. Quiroz v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, 2022 NY Slip Op 01130, First Dept 2-22-22

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF HER PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE REDUCED AND CONVICTION MODIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s sentence and modifying her conviction in the interest of justice, determined defendant had made good faith efforts to complete the anger-management program that was part of her plea agreement:

… [D]efendant entered into a plea agreement whereby she would plead guilty to second-degree assault, third-degree assault and endangering the welfare of a child, and the case would be adjourned for one year to allow her to complete a 12-week anger management program. If defendant completed the program, complied with an order of protection and had no new arrests, the People would allow her to withdraw her guilty plea to second-degree assault, and she would be sentenced to conditional discharges on the two misdemeanor convictions. Despite defendant’s diligent, repeated efforts to complete an anger management program, legitimate issues such as her inability to arrange childcare for her two young children after her 75-year-old grandmother, who had been caring for the children while defendant attended the sessions, broke her hip, prevented her from attending all the sessions. She enrolled in the program three times, each time beginning from the start, but could not complete the 12 weeks. At the time of sentencing, she had found, enrolled in and almost completed a different program close to her home with a schedule that allowed her to work and pick up her children after school. Although she did not complete the anger management program, defendant satisfied the remaining terms of the plea agreement. Under these circumstances, in the interests of justice we accordingly reduce the conviction and modify the sentence … . People v Perez, 2022 NY Slip Op 01104, Second Dept 2-17-22

 

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