You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS, I.E., PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED TO PAY $10,000 IN COUNSEL FEES TO DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not follow the procedural requirements for imposing sanctions, i.e.,  $10,000 in attorney’s fees to defendant’s counsel, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel:

The motion court’s sua sponte award of sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel did not satisfy the procedural requirements of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Court (22 NYCRR) § 130-1. That section provides that a court may award costs or impose sanctions “upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … and “only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate” … . DeSouza v Manhattan RX LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01875, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: Before a judge can impose sanctions, here ordering plaintiff’s attorney to pay counsel fees in the amount of $10,000 to defendant’s attorney, the relevant rules in 22 NYCRR 130-1 must be complied with, i.e., affording an opportunity to be heard and issuing a written decision explaining the conduct, why it was found frivolous and the reasons for the amount awarded or imposed.

 

,

DEFENDANT COMMODITY FUTURES BROKER IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER FIDELITY BONDS FOR LOSSES INCURRED BY THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF A BROKER AMOUNTING TO $141 MILLION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant MF Global was entitled to coverage under fidelity bonds for losses incurred by the criminal actions of a broker, Dooley, for which Dooley was ordered to pay restitution to MF Global in the amount of $141 million:

This 2009 declaratory judgment action involves a $141 million insurance coverage dispute between plaintiffs New Hampshire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Axis Reinsurance Company (Insurers) and defendant, commodity futures broker MF Global Finance USA, Inc. (MF Global). New Hampshire issued the primary bond insurance policy to MF Global’s predecessor and Liberty Mutual and Axis Reinsurance each issued excess financial institution bonds, covering the same policy period and incorporating the provisions and terms of the primary bond. Defendant MF Global seeks coverage under those bonds for a trading loss incurred in February 2008 by Evan Brent Dooley, a broker for MF Global, who in 2012 pleaded guilty to exceeding speculative position limits in violation of 7 USC §§ 6a and 13(a)(5). Dooley was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release and was ordered to pay restitution of over $141 million to MF Global upon release from prison.

… [W]e hold that defendant is covered under the fidelity bonds for its loss and is entitled to summary judgment in its favor…. . New Hampshire Ins. Co. v MF Global Fin. USA Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01880, First Dept 3-17-22

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF AT JFK AIRPORT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, HE WAS NOT ON DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT; THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this vicarious liability, negligent hiring and supervision and premises liability action should have been granted. Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by Miles, who worked for American Airlines, at JFK airport (owned by defendant Port Authority). Plaintiff sued under respondeat superior and negligence theories. Miles testified he was not on duty at the time of the incident:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for intentional torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment, as long as those acts were “generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . Where the material facts are not in dispute, the question whether respondeat superior liability attaches is one of law and can be determined on a motion for summary judgment … . Here the threshold question is whether Miles was even working, or under the direction of American, at the time of the incident. … [D]efendants attached the deposition transcript of Miles, who testified that he was not working at the time of the incident. This was sufficient to at least satisfy defendants’ prima facie burden … .

Because the testimony of Miles, who, notably, is not a party to this action, was that he was not on duty when the altercation occurred, defendants shifted the burden on the issue of respondeat superior. Moreover, Miles’s testimony about his job responsibilities — escorting planes in and out, and loading and unloading luggage — established prima facie that the foreseeability element of respondeat superior liability was not present. The alleged assault bore no connection to plaintiff’s work duties, and thus was not “in furtherance of any employer-related goal whatsoever”  Summors v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 01891, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: An American Airlines employee allegedly assaulted plaintiff at JFK airport. The defendants demonstrated the American Airlines employee was not on duty at the time of the incident, which was deemed fatal to respondeat superior (vicarious) liability.

 

,

IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE MATTER, PLAINTIFF INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NYCRR SUCH THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer did not demonstrate it was entitled to summary judgment based upon the insured’s failure to appear for an independent medical examination (IME):

[Plaintiff insurer’s] its motion papers did not demonstrate that it sustained its burden of showing that it complied with New York State no-fault regulations (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[b], [d]) governing the timeframes for scheduling IMEs … .. Specifically, plaintiff did not establish that it timely requested the IMEs under the applicable no-fault regulations, since plaintiff’s motion papers did not establish the dates of the verification forms that it received from the medical provider defendants; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether plaintiff sent the appropriate notices within 15 business days or 30 calendar days of receiving the forms, as required under (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5(b) and (d) …  American Tr. Ins. Co. v Alcantara, 2022 NY Slip Op 01871, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: An insurer must show compliance with the regulatory timeframes for scheduling an independent medical examination (IME) before it will be entitled to summary judgment based on an insured’s failure to appear at an IME.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHILE REPAIRING AN ESCALATOR, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE ESCALATOR’S SUDDEN START-UP, THE MOTION TO COMPEL HIM TO SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WAS PROPERLY DENIED; PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS CAN BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AT THIS STAGE PLAINTIFF CAN TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED START-UP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motion to compel plaintiff to supplement his interrogatories in this products liability case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the escalator he was working on started up without warning severely injured his leg. The fact that plaintiff can not identify the cause of the unexpected start-up did not require supplementing his interrogatories as he can so state “under oath:”

“It is well settled that a products liability cause of action may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and thus, a plaintiff need not identify a specific product defect” … . In the absence of evidence identifying a specific defect “a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to [the] defendants” … . If a “plaintiff is unable to prove both elements, ‘a jury may not infer that the harm was caused by a defective product unless [the] plaintiff offers competent evidence identifying a specific flaw'” …

In his interrogatory responses, plaintiff identified several alleged design defects, including the design of the pit, that contributed to his injury. However, he did not identify a cause for the unexpected start up of the escalator. … Presently, plaintiff asserts that he cannot pinpoint the defective component that allowed the escalator’s machinery to begin moving without warning. In an instance where plaintiff “presently lacks the knowledge” to specifically identify the nature of the defect, plaintiff can testify to that “under oath” … . … [I]f he acquires the pertinent information he would be under an obligation to promptly supplement his answers to the interrogatories at issue … . Berkovich v Judlau Contr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01733, First Dept 3-15-22

Practice Point: Products liability actions can be proven by circumstantial evidence. If a plaintiff does not know the cause of a product malfunction (here, an escalator which allegedly started running unexpectedly) at the discovery stage, the plaintiff can testify to that fact under oath.

 

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS WAS NOT TIMELY, THE ASSERTION OF THE DEFENSE IN THE REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS TIMELY; THE DEFENSE CAN BE RAISED IN A SUBSEQUENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department noted that the statute of limitations affirmative defense was timely served in a reply to a counterclaim

[Defendant] NYCTA did not waive its affirmative defense under CPLR 3211(a)(5) because a defense based upon the statute of limitations is waived only if it is neither asserted in a responsive pleading or in a timely motion … . Here the affirmative defense was timely asserted in NYCTA’s reply to the counterclaim. The motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5), however, was not timely made, as required under CPLR 3211(e) … . … We note that NYCTA may pursue relief on its statute of limitations defense by way of a summary judgment motion in the normal course of the litigation … . Han v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01737, First Dept 3-15-22​

Practice Point: Even if it is too late to move to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds, if the defense has been timely asserted, it can be the basis of a subsequent summary judgment motion.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING UP AN EARTHEN RAMP WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY AN EXCAVATOR AND ROLLED DOWN THE RAMP; THERE WAS NO “SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL” SUCH THAT LABOR LAW 24O (1) WOULD APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the circumstances of plaintiff’s injury did not fit the “elevation-related” element of a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was walking up an earthen ramp when he was struck by an excavator and rolled down the ramp:

Labor Law § 240(1) is inapplicable to this case because plaintiff’s injuries were not “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk from a physically significant elevation differential” … . Plaintiff was struck by an excavator; the fact that at the time he was bringing debris up an earthen ramp, or that he rolled down the ramp after being struck, does not give rise to a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . Herrera v Kent Ave. Prop. III LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01738, First Dept 3-15-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was walking up an earthen ramp when he was struck by an excavator and rolled down the ramp. There was no failure to provide equipment to protect against an elevation-related hazard such that Labor Law 240 (1) would apply.

 

, , ,

IN A RARE REVERSAL OF A BENCH TRIAL ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, THE 1ST DEPT DETERMINED FOUR OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE “EXCITED UTTERANCE” OR “PROMPT OUTCRY” THEORIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT ONLY THE FACT OF THE COMPLAINT, NOT THE ACCOMPANYING DETAILS, ARE ADMISSIBLE AS A “PROMPT OUTCRY” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a nonjury trial, determined four out-of-court statements made by the alleged victim in this sexual-offense case should not have been admitted a “excited utterances.” Although two of the statements were “prompt outcries,” under that theory only the fact of a complaint, not the details (as provided here) are admissible:

… [T]he trial court admitted four statements made by the alleged victim following the incident, reasoning that they were admissible both as excited utterances and prompt outcries. This was error. The alleged victim’s out-of-court statements did not qualify as excited utterances and should not have been admitted for their substance under that hearsay exception …  . Although two of the four statements were correctly admitted under the alternative theory that they constituted prompt outcries, under this exception, “only the fact of a complaint, not its accompanying details” is admissible … . It is clear from the record that the trial court considered all four hearsay statements for their substance, and thus, there can be no presumption that the court, as the finder of fact, considered only competent evidence … .. Given the People’s strong reliance on the hearsay statements to prove its case, and the court’s indication that it intended to review the written statement that was in evidence during deliberation, we cannot say that “the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming” and that the error was therefore harmless … . People v Gideon, 2022 NY Slip Op 01746, First Dept 3-15-22

​Practice Point: In this nonjury sexual-offense prosecution the court erred by admitting out-of-court statements by the alleged victim under the “prompt outcry” theory. Only the fact of the complaint is admissible, not the accompanying details.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT WAS IN JAPAN, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS FAMILY COURT CIVIL-CONTEMPT MATTER; APPELLANT HAD APPEARED VIRTUALLY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND STATED HE WOULD RETURN TO NEW YORK TO COMPLY WITH ANY COURT ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department refused to dismiss the appeal of this Family Court civil contempt matter pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine (which authorizes the dismissal of an appeal if the appellant has left the jurisdiction). Here father was in Japan:

Although the father is in Japan, we decline to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. There is no “nexus” connecting the father’s fugitive status and these proceedings … . The father has continued to appear virtually in court, communicate with his counsel, and consent to relief sought by the mother. He has complied with the terms of his probation and submitted an affidavit stating that he will return to New York to comply with any court order. Under these circumstances, we find that the father has not “flout[ed] the judicial process,” frustrated the operation of the courts, or prejudiced the mother’s rights by leaving the jurisdiction to warrant dismissal of the appeal … .Matter of Hilary C. v Michael K., 2022 NY Slip Op 01512, First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: If an appellant leaves the court’s jurisdiction (here father went to Japan), the appeal may be dismissed pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The doctrine was not applied in this Family Court civil contempt case because father participated in court proceedings virtually and stated he would return to New York to comply with any court order.

 

,

THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 2020 amendments to the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) law (Civil Rights Law section 70) should not be applied retroactively to cover plaintiff’s defamation claims against defendant. Therefore defendant’s motion for a ruling that the anti-SLAPP amendments applied retroactively should not have been granted:

… [T]here is insufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that the legislature intended its 2020 amendments to the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) law (see Civil Rights Law § 70 et seq.) to apply retroactively to pending claims such as the defamation claims asserted by plaintiffs in this action.

The Court of Appeals has stated, in general terms, that “ameliorative or remedial legislation” should be given “retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose” … . * * * … “[C]lassifying a statute as remedial does not automatically overcome the strong presumption of prospectivity since the term may broadly encompass any attempt to supply some defect or abridge some superfluity in the former law” … . …

In light of …. the factual evidence that the amendments to New York’s anti-SLAPP law were intended to better advance the purposes of the legislation by correcting the narrow scope of the prior anti-SLAPP law, we find that the presumption of prospective application of the amendments has not been defeated. The legislature acted to broaden the scope of the law almost 30 years after the law was originally enacted, purportedly to advance an underlying remedial purpose that was not adequately addressed in the original legislative language. The legislature did not specify that the new legislation was to be applied retroactively. The fact that the amended statute is remedial, and that the legislature provided that the amendments shall take effect immediately, does not support the conclusion that the legislature intended retroactive application of the amendments. Gottwald v Sebert,  2022 NY Slip Op 01515, First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: The fact that a statute is deemed “remedial” in nature does not necessarily support a retroactive application of the statute. Here the 2020 amendments to the anti-SLAPP law, although “remedial,” were not applied retroactively to cover plaintiff’s pending defamation action against the defendant. The defendant’s motion for a ruling applying the amendments retroactively should not have been granted.

 

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