You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to the records of the driver’s guilty plea to an unclassified misdemeanor (under the NYC Administrative Code), which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right of way: The unclassified misdemeanor is not covered by the sealing statute, Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.55 which seals records of Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions:

… [Defendant driver] was arrested, charged, and subsequently pled guilty to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-190(b), an unclassified misdemeanor, and to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), a traffic violation, for failing to yield to plaintiff’s decedent and causing him injury. Plaintiff … now seeks the records pertaining to [the driver’s] unclassified misdemeanor. The City defendants argue that these records are not discoverable because they overlap with [the driver’s] traffic infraction records, which are sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55.

Under CPL 160.55, all records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution of an individual convicted of a traffic infraction or violation, following a criminal action or proceeding, shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency … . Plaintiff is entitled to [the driver’s] records pertaining to his unclassified misdemeanor, as the records are not subject to CPL 160.55, and it does not appear that they were sealed … . To the extent these records contain references or information related solely to [the driver’s] sealed traffic violation case, the City must redact or remove it from its production. Lu-Wong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02226, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: Although the records of traffic infractions are sealed under CPL 160.55, the records of a violation of the NYC Administrative Code, which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right-of-way, are not subject to that sealing statute. Therefore the plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to those records.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY; HERE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT, EVEN THOUGH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the trial judge properly allowed plaintiff to call her treating physician to rebut the testimony of defendants’ expert, even though the doctor’s testimony could have been presented in her case-in-chief:

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff to call her treating radiologist as a rebuttal witness … . While plaintiff’s radiologist’s testimony could have been offered as part of her case-in-chief, and her failure to offer the testimony at that time deprived her of the right to make use of it as affirmative evidence, she still had the right to offer the testimony in order “to impeach or discredit” the testimony of defendants’ expert radiologist … . Reinoso v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02242, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: In a civil case, a judge has the discretion to allow a plaintiff to present rebuttal evidence which could have been presented in the case-in-chief.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN SEVERAL PROSPECTIVE JURORS INDICATED THEY WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s sexual-abuse conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when several prospective jurors indicated they would be inclined to believe the victim:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR [Mr. L.]: … I would say that I do think that there is a lot of disincentives to come forward at all. And to come forward to this point, it would surprise me that someone would get that far without there being anything at all to it

THE COURT: Okay. …

MR. LYNCH: I know some of you raised your hand. Who agrees with the statement that Mr. L. just said?” (at which time 5 jurors raised their hands).

This statement by prospective juror (Mr. L.) and the apparent agreement by the other prospective jurors who raised their hands was sufficient to raise “a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial” … . The court erred in not engaging in any further inquiry of these jurors in order to elicit an unequivocal assurance of their impartiality and their ability to follow the court’s instructions … . People v Ledezma, 2022 NY Slip Op 02236, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: In this sexual abuse case, five prospective jurors agreed with a prospective juror who said he would be inclined to believe the victim because of how hard it is to come forward. The judge should have made further inquiries. New trial ordered.

 

PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff’s work on the elevator was not routine maintenance and therefore Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) were applicable; (2) the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action based on Industrial Code provisions requiring the guarding of hazardous openings should not have been dismissed; and (3) there are questions of fact whether one defendant, Edge, based on a subcontract, was liable as a statutory agent under Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6):

Plaintiff and a coworker lowered a building’s freight elevator into the basement to allow plaintiff to perform work on top of the elevator. Plaintiff testified that he spent about 40 minutes performing that work, which involved making changes to the elevator in order to prevent people from accessing a first-floor renovation site by means of the elevator’s rear door. The elevator’s front door opened onto an outdoor area. After performing this task, plaintiff claims that he tripped on a wooden ramp, which led from a loading dock to the elevator, and fell. …

… [P]laintiff was engaged in altering the premises within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), since his work was intended to secure the premises in preparation for the renovation project … .

The Labor Law § 241(6) claim should be reinstated insofar as it is based on alleged violations of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) and 23-1.15(a), since there are issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s accident was proximately caused by the lack of a compliant “safety railing” guarding the “hazardous opening,” and it is undisputed that the opening was not “guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place” (12 NYCRR § 23-1.7[b][1][i]). …

… [T]here is testimonial evidence that the subcontract made Edge responsible for performing all aspects of the sidewalk excavation, including safety procedures. Moreover, there are issues of fact as to whether Edge created or had notice of the defective condition that caused plaintiff to fall into the excavation hole … . Rooney v D.P. Consulting Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02243, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: This case found that a subcontractor responsible for safety procedures could be liable as a statutory agent under Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6).

 

, , , ,

EACH TIME PLAINTIFF’S MARKETING DIRECTOR ENTERED A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY IN WHICH THE DIRECTOR HAD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE WRONG UNDER THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine applied to each time defendant hired Exit for video editing services within six years of filing the complaint. In addition, the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty:

This action arises from the conduct of plaintiff’s former director of marketing, Taufiq, in repeatedly contracting with Exit Editorial, Inc. (Exit), owned by Tristan Kneschke (together with Exit, the Exit defendants), for video editing services. Plaintiff claims that Taufiq falsely represented to it that he negotiated with Exit at arms length and that Exit’s prices were reasonable, when in fact its prices were well above market rate, he had an ownership interest in Exit, and he received a cash finder’s fee for each contract with Exit.

Plaintiff’s allegations and supporting affidavits were sufficient to permit an inference that a separate exercise of judgment, and thus a separate wrong, was committed each time Exit was hired, thereby enabling application of the continuing wrong doctrine … . * * *

The breach of fiduciary duty claim against Taufiq should be reinstated, as an agent has a duty to make full disclosure to its principal of any conflicts of interest and there is no requirement of justifiable reliance for such a claim … .Manipal Educ. Ams., LLC v Taufiq, 2022 NY Slip Op 02200, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: An allegation that an employee entered contracts on behalf of his employer with a company of which the employee was a part-owner, without so informing his employer, supports causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Each contract constituted a separate wrong pursuant to the continuing wrong doctrine.

 

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A PLASTIC SHEET PLACED OVER AN ESCALATOR TO PROTECT IT FROM DRIPPING PAINT; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION DISMISSED; THE PLASTIC COVER WAS NOT A FOREIGN SUBSTANCE; AND THE PLASTIC COVER WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined two provisions of the Industrial Code did not apply to this slip and fall on a plastic covering used to protect an escalator from dripping paint. The code provision requiring areas to be kept free of slippery “foreign substances” did not apply. And both code provisions were inapplicable because the condition was an integral part of the work being performed:

Sensibly interpreted, the heavy-duty plastic covering is not similar in nature to the foreign substances listed in the regulation, i.e., ice, snow, water or grease … . …

… [T]he covering was part of the staging conditions of the area plaintiff was tasked with painting, making it integral to his work. Therefore, even if the regulation arguably contemplates plastic sheeting to be a slipping hazard, under the factual circumstances here, the integral to the work defense bars plaintiff’s reliance on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d). …

… [T]he Supreme Court and the dissent incorrectly find liability pursuant to Industrial Code Section 23-1.7(e)(1). This section is inapplicable for the same reasons stated above with respect to Industrial Code Section 23-1.7 (d), namely that the plastic covering was an integral part of the work being performed … . Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02189. First Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: Plaintiff slipped and fell on a plastic sheet placed to protect an escalator from dripping paint. The Labor Law 241(6) action was dismissed because (1) the plastic sheet was not a slippery foreign substance within the meaning of the Industrial Code and (2) the plastic sheet was an integral part of the work performed to which the Industrial Code does not apply.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BY ALLEGING THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AGAINST THE WISHES OF DECEDENT AND DECEDENT’S HEALTH-CARE AGENTS PROLONGED DECEDENT’S PAIN AND SUFFERING; THE “WRONGFUL LIFE” LINE OF CASES DOES NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a cause of action sounding in medical malpractice by alleging the treatment of plaintiff’s decedent against decedent’s wishes and the wishes of his health-care agents prolonged his pain and suffering. This action was distinguished from the “wrongful life” line of case which held that being born alive with disabilities does not constitute an injury in New York [therefore a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging the parents should have been advised to terminate the pregnancy does not state a cause of action]. Supreme Court had based its dismissal of the complaint on a Second Department case (Cronin) which followed the “wrongful life” line of reasoning. The First Department refused to follow the Second Department:

… [In] Cronin, it appears that plaintiff sought damages based on a claim “that the defendant wrongfully prolonged the decedent’s life by resuscitating him against the express instructions of the decedent and his family” (Cronin, 60 AD3d at 804). In contrast, here, plaintiff seeks damages for decedent’s pain and suffering, which the complaint alleges was the result of medical malpractice in that defendants breached the standard of care by administering treatments without consent and in direct contravention of decedent’s wishes expressed in his advance directives as reaffirmed by his health care agents … .Greenberg v Montefiore New Rochelle Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02194, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: A decision in one appellate-division department does not bind another department. Here the “wrongful life” line of cases did not preclude a medical malpractice action alleging the treatment of plaintiff’s decedent against decedent’s wishes and against the wishes of decedent’s health-care agents prolonged decedent’s pain and suffering.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT ADDRESS THE OPINION OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint in this medical malpractice case, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiffs’ expert did not address the defendants’ expert’s opinion. The defense expert averred plaintiff’s problems were caused by cancer. Plaintiffs’ expert took the position plaintiff never had cancer, a position contradicted by the record:

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment through their expert, who averred that defendants’ treatment of plaintiff was within the standard of care and any difficulties with the treatment were caused by plaintiff’s underlying cancer. Plaintiffs’ expert failed to address that opinion, and thus failed to rebut defendants’ showing of entitlement to summary judgment … . Instead, the expert took the position that plaintiff never had cancer, a fact contradicted by the record … .. While plaintiff’s cancer had an unusual presentation, and pathologists initially disagreed as to whether she had an invasive jaw cancer, she was ultimately successfully treated by oncologists with surgery, radiation, and gene therapy. Plaintiffs’ expert entirely ignored plaintiff’s treatment from 2016 to 2017 for a rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma, as well as her 2018 treatment for a reoccurrence … . Given those omissions, plaintiffs did not rebut defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary dismissal of the negligence and medical malpractice claims against them…. . Mulroe v New York-Presbyt. Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02204, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: If the defendants’ expert in a med mal case makes a prima facie showing defendants’ treatment was within the standard of care and the plaintiffs’ expert does not address that opinion, defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted. Med mal cases, at the summary judgment stage, turn on the experts’ affidavits. Every argument raised by the movant’s expert must be addressed by the plaintiff’s expert to raise a question of fact.

,

THE HOSPITAL FROM WHICH LAPTOPS WERE STOLEN WAS NOT A “DWELLING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BURGLARY STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing two of defendant’s burglary convictions, determined the hospital from which laptops were stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes:

Defendant’s convictions under counts three and four of the indictment, regarding the 2017 thefts of laptop computers from the Physicians & Surgeons Building at Columbia University Medical Center, were not supported by legally sufficient evidence of the “dwelling” element of burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.00[3]). There was no evidence that patients stayed overnight in this building. The People’s reliance on Penal Law § 140.00(2) is unavailing, because no “unit” within the building is a dwelling. Although the building was part of a large campus covering several blocks, there was insufficient evidence that this building provided defendant with ready access via connecting elevators, stairwells, or corridors to other buildings, where hospital patients stayed overnight and which was, in any event, at a considerable distance … . People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02205, First Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: Here a hospital from which laptops had been stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR SAID TRAVEL PLANS PROHIBITED HER FROM SERVING BEYOND THE PROJECTED LAST DAY OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when a prospective juror said travel plans prohibited her from serving beyond the projected last day of the trial:

During jury selection, the court advised the panel that the trial could last until April 17, 2018. The panelist at issue stated that she “absolutely” could not serve on April 18, because she had irrevocable travel plans for that day. When defense counsel said that “we are starting to get closer to the 16th, 17th,” and asked whether she “may not be able to give [her] best attention” if “we started moving in that direction,” the panelist said, “Yes.” Counsel challenged this panelist for cause because of the concern that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial due to her travel constraints. In the alternative, counsel sought to question this panelist further. The court denied the challenge because it believed that the trial “should never even get that close.” Defendant was compelled to exercise his final peremptory challenge against this panelist. The court should have granted defendant’s request for further inquiry to determine her ability to serve … . Given that her travel plans precluded her from serving a single day beyond the court’s estimated outer limit for the trial, the panelist gave the impression that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial, as she stated, and that, if selected, she might have been biased in favor of reaching a verdict quickly … . People v Bowman, 2022 NY Slip Op 02208, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here a prospective juror had firm travel plans and therefore could not serve beyond the projected last day of the trial. The judge should have inquired further when defense counsel suggested she may have difficulty focusing on the trial. The juror may have been biased in favor of a quick verdict. Defense counsel used a peremptory challenge; new trial ordered.

 

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