You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A PATIENT’S FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME), THE NO-FAULT INSURER MUST SHOW BOTH THAT THE PATIENT DID NOT SHOW UP AND THE REQUEST FOR THE IME AND THE SCHEDULING OF THE IME COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED TIME-FRAMES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-insurer’s motion for summary judgment in this no-fault insurance action should not have been granted. Although an insurer need not pay no-fault claims if the patient did not appear for an independent medical examination (IME), in order to warrant an award of  summary judgment the insurer must demonstrate compliance with the required time frames for requesting and scheduling the IME:

The failure to appear for a properly scheduled independent medical examination (IME) requested by the insurer “when, and as often as, it may reasonably require is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the no-fault policy” and vitiates coverage ab initio … . However, to meet its prima facie burden for summary judgment where it has denied a claim for no-fault benefits based on a patient’s failure to appear for an IME, the insurer must establish that it requested IMEs in accordance with the procedures and time frames set forth in the no-fault implementing regulations and that the patient did not appear … . Because it is impossible to discern from the record in each case here whether plaintiff complied with the requisite time frames requiring it to request IMEs within 15 days of receiving appellants’ claims and scheduling the IMEs for within 30 days of receiving their claims (11 NYCRR 65-3.5[b],[d] ), plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … . American Tr. Ins. Co. v Martinez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00963, First Dept 2-15-22

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “AFFILIATES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF A RELEASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Courts should have simply denied the motion to dismiss instead of deciding what parties were included in the term “affiliates” in the release at issue:

Supreme Court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the word “affiliates” in the release entered into between plaintiffs and Siddiqui could not be read to include defendants Cernich and Huan Tseng … . The word “affiliates” may apply to individuals, and is “not commonly understood to apply only to entities” … . Furthermore, the arbitrator’s conclusion, in an earlier arbitration against different parties, that the release did not apply to nonparty Ming Dang does not serve as a conclusive basis for finding that the release did not apply to defendants. Accordingly, the scope of the release language with respect to Cernich and Tseng was ambiguous, and Supreme Court should have simply denied the motion to dismiss without determining the meaning of the release language as a matter of law. Apollo Mgt., Inc. v Cernich, 2022 NY Slip Op 00964, First Dept 2-15-22​

 

NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the building owner (Grand) and the prospective purchaser of the building (Empire) should have been dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor which apparently had just been mopped by a co-worker. Neither Grand nor Empire had general supervisory authority over the premises and did not supervise or control the work of plaintiff or the co-worker:

The building was owned by defendant Grand but was under a contract of sale to defendant Empire, with a closing date of February 1, 2017. Under the contract of sale, Empire was given access to the premises prior to closing to perform renovations and to stage and lease the apartments. Empire hired plaintiff’s employer Infinity to act as general contractor for the renovations. According to the record, Empire did not have any employees at the premises on the date of the accident and did not supervise Infinity’s work. Grand had no employees or agents at the premises full time, but an employee of a company related to Grand would occasionally visit the building to check that there were no problems and that everything was clean. The employee visited the building approximately four or five times, approximately twice in the four months prior to the accident, and once during construction. No one employed by Grand regularly supervised the construction ongoing at the premises. Arnold v Empire 326 Grand LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00965, First Dept 2-15-22

 

, ,

THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined no part of plaintiff’s automobile accident settlement was available to satisfy a medical lien held by the NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA) because the settlement did not include medical expenses:

HRA asserted a lien on the proceeds of plaintiff’s settlement of an action arising out of an automobile accident in an amount representing the total amount of the medical bills it paid in connection with the treatment of the injuries plaintiff sustained in the accident (see Social Services Law § 104-b). However, plaintiff was barred from suing for medical expenses, because her basic economic losses were less than $50,000 (see Insurance Law § 5102[a]). Moreover, in light of the particular record before us, no portion of the proceeds of the settlement represents medical expenses, and HRA may not recover any portion of the proceeds for its medical costs … . Marmol v Mutino, 2022 NY Slip Op 00970, First Dept 2-15-22

​

,

IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the grant of a license to petitioner, pursuant to RPAPL 881, to enter respondents’ abutting property to protect the abutting property during construction work on petitioner’s building, but vacated or reduced some of the specific costs and/or damages awarded. The First Department noted that attorney’s fees, license fees and engineering fees, etc., associated with the respondents’ efforts to protect their building and the loss of use and enjoyment of their building during construction are properly assessed to the petitioner:

What petitioner seeks is essentially to compel respondents to grant it a license on its own terms. However, as we have recognized, because “[t]he respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it . . . [e]quity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access” … . Thus, the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention that a license fee constitutes a windfall unless there are some actual damages, such as lost business, we have found that a license fee is warranted “where the granted license will entail substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property during the [license] period, thus decreasing the value of the property during that time” … .

Similarly, a compulsory licensor should be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ and engineering fees … . Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium, 2022 NY Slip Op 00975, First Dept 2-15-22

,

PLAINTIFF, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, PROPERLY PURSUED CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-dissolved-corporation properly pursued claims and liabilities which arose prior to dissolution:

A dissolved corporation is permitted to pursue claims and liabilities that arose prior to dissolution as part of the winding up process (Business Corporation Law §§ 1005[a][1]; 1006[a][4]; [b] …). Plaintiff’s commencement of this litigation, as well as the settlement of other predissolution claims against defendant, and its use of settlement funds to satisfy its outstanding liabilities in the wage violations case, are expressly contemplated and authorized by Business Corporation Law § 1006(a)(4). Thus, it was error to find that plaintiff’s dissolution resulted in it lacking capacity to maintain this action against defendant for work performed before plaintiff was dissolved … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s winding up period has not been so extended as to be considered unreasonable … . TADCO Constr. Corp. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 00990, First Dept 2-15-22

 

,

THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the burglary second count, determined the People’s request to instruct the jury on burglary second as a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense should not have been granted. Although burglary second is a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense, the People’s case focused only on the sexual motivation. Defendant therefore did not have notice the jury would consider burglary second:

… [T]he court improperly charged the lesser-included offense because the People, through the way they presented their case, deprived defendant of notice of the possibility that the jury would be asked to consider a lesser-included. In People v Barnes (50 NY2d 375 [1980]), the Court of Appeals observed that, where the People in a burglary case limit to a particular crime the act that the defendant intended to commit while unlawfully in a building, “the court is obliged to hold the prosecution to this narrower theory alone” … . * * *

In opposing defendant’s pretrial motion to sever certain charges in the indictment from the others, the People focused exclusively on defendant’s sexual harassment of the complainant, and on his grabbing the arm and pulling the shirt of another woman he encountered in the dorm. In making an application for the admission of certain Molineux evidence, the prosecutor focused only on the theory that defendant entered the dorm to satisfy his own sexual urges. And, in his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that defendant “knowingly and unlawfully entered the private area of a dorm to do exactly what he had been doing minutes prior — to grab, to grope and to harass the young women who lived there.” Further, the prosecutor downplayed the behavior defendant displayed towards some men he saw in the lobby of the dorm, stating that “the evidence will show that he was substantially motivated by his desire to abuse women when he passed that turnstile and unlawfully entered the private area of the dorm.” People v Seignious, 2022 NY Slip Op 00948, First Dept 2-10-22

 

,

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AFFIRMED; DURING A POLICE CHASE, DEFENDANT DROVE THE WRONG WAY ON A HIGHWAY AND CRASHED HEAD-ON INTO AN ONCOMING CAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the evidence supported defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction stemming from his driving the wrong way on a highway and crashing into an oncoming car during a police chase:

While fleeing from the police, defendant drove 14 blocks against oncoming traffic on the West Side Highway, a major roadway, despite openings in the median between the north and southbound lanes, while running several red lights and driving onto the curb and sidewalk. Additionally, defendant did not avail himself of parking lots and driveways on the west side of the Highway, where he could have pulled off to avoid any collision with an oncoming vehicle. Heading north, the Highway merges into, and becomes, the Henry Hudson Parkway at the intersection of 57th Street. Instead of utilizing the last available opportunity to turn into the north bound lanes, defendant made the decision to continue driving in the wrong direction and entered onto the Parkway. It is unrefuted that the Parkway had no breaks in the median through which he could return to the northbound lanes and that oncoming cars were going even faster there than on the Highway because the speed limit increased from 35 mph to 50 mph. After he got on the Parkway, defendant remained in the lane immediately to the left of the concrete barrier separating the northbound and southbound lanes, made no effort to change lanes or to swerve to avoid oncoming vehicles and made no effort to stop or slow down, despite the fact that he was now on a parkway. He continued driving this way on the Parkway for seven blocks at which time he collided, head-on, with a vehicle driving in the proper direction in the southbound lane. People v Herrera, 2022 NY Slip Op 00949, First Dept 2-10-22

 

THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER POWERS BY AWARDING RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY ALL THE PARTIES OR AUTHORIZED BY LAW; PUNITIVE DAMAGES, SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the arbitrator’s award of punitive damages, sanctions and attorney’s fees because that relief was not requested by the parties, therefore the arbitrator exceeded her power:

Although the American Arbitration Association (AAA) preprinted form petitioner used allows a claimant to seek other relief, including attorneys’ fees, interest, arbitration costs and punitive/exemplary damages, the only boxes that petitioner checked off were for interest and arbitration costs. It did not check the punitive damages box or attorneys’ fees box, nor indicate anywhere on its demand that it was seeking such relief. Petitioner never amended its demand for arbitration. Nor did it include a prayer for such relief in its subsequently filed post-arbitration memorandum. By granting unrequested relief, the arbitrator exceeded the expressly enumerated limits on her authority by deciding matters that were not before her … .

Although AAA commercial rule 47(d) empowers an arbitrator to award attorneys’ fees, this is only “if all parties have requested such an award or it is authorized by law or their arbitration agreement.” Here, neither party requested such an award and it is not authorized by law.  Matter of 544 Bloomrest, LLC v Harding, 2022 NY Slip Op 00936, First Dept 2-10-22​

 

, ,

PETITIONER SOUGHT RECORDS FROM THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION (TLC) TO DETERMINE HOW THE COMMISSION WAS HANDLING LICENSE APPLICANTS WITH CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS; THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s request for records from the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), including fitness interview decisions (FID”s) should not have been denied. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court for an in camera review of the records:

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) (18 USC § 2721 et seq.) does not impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all motor vehicle records. Instead, the law restricts disclosure of “personal information,” which includes personal identifiers of the type that petitioner agrees should be redacted. Moreover, even as to such personal information, the DPPA still expressly provides for disclosure in various circumstances, such as for research purposes, where the personal information will not be further disclosed … . Motor vehicle records under the DPPA are thus not the kind of records as to which production is absolutely prohibited, as long as they are redacted … .

The record is not clear as to what extent it is possible to anonymize production of the TLC fitness interview decisions (FIDs), which petitioner seeks in order to assess whether the TLC has been applying fair standards in its decision making on licensing determinations with respect to people with one or more criminal convictions … . Matter of Brooklyn Legal Servs. v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 2022 NY Slip Op 00809, First Dept 2-8-22

 

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