You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD TO STAND ON THE GUARDRAILS OF THE MANLIFT TO REACH WHAT HE WAS WORKING ON, THE MANLIFT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff had to stand on the guardrails of a manlift to reach what he was working on. He received an electric shock and fell:

Plaintiffs should be granted summary judgment as to defendants’ liability under the statute. The record demonstrates that plaintiff Matthew S. Healy (plaintiff) fell from the guardrails of a manlift after sustaining an electric shock. Plaintiff was required to stand on the manlift’s guardrails because HVAC ductwork prevented him from raising the manlift to the area in which he needed to work. Thus, the manlift was “inappropriate for the task at hand in light of the configuration of the building” and failed to afford plaintiff adequate protection pursuant to the statute … .Healy v BOP One N. End LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01388, First Dept 3-3-22

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MODIFY A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined Family Court did not have jurisdiction to modify the separation agreement by putting a cap on the child-support/spousal-support credit father was entitled to for his payment of the mortgage and apartment expenses:

A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce may be reformed only in a plenary action … . Family Court does not have jurisdiction to modify a separation agreement … . Under the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, the father is entitled to pay his $2,100 in monthly child support directly to the mortgagee of the parties’ former marital apartment. However, the Family Court erred in capping the father’s credit against support arrears at $25,200 per year based on this provision. Although Family Court found that there was no similar provision with respect to spousal support, in fact the parties’ stipulation permits the father to also deduct the payment of apartment expenses, including the mortgage, from his spousal support. Accordingly, Family Court improperly amended the stipulation by imposing an annual maximum credit to which the father is entitled based solely on his child support obligation. Matter of Deborah K. v Richard K., 2022 NY Slip Op 01391, First Dept 3-3-22

 

,

PLAINTIFFS-PARENTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LOSS OF THEIR INJURED DAUGHTER’S SERVICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PARENTS DEMONSTRATED ONLY THAT THEIR DAUGHTER PERFORMED SERVICES IN HER EMPLOYMENT AT THE COMPANIES OWNED BY THE PARENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the parents’ cause of action for loss of their injured daughter’s services should have been granted:

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiffs Arlene and Herbert Klaar, the parents of the injured plaintiff, Deborah Klaar, are not entitled to recover damages for loss of their daughter’s services since they showed only that their claim rests entirely on the services Deborah performed in her employment at the two companies they own … .

… [P]laintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact. They cited deposition testimony demonstrating that Deborah served as a secretary, office manager, and assistant controller at her parents’ companies, that she was expected to take over the businesses and provide her parents with a monthly payment, and that she had significant difficulty fulfilling all of her many duties following the accident. They did not submit evidence that Deborah regularly performed services for them as their daughter, such as doing chores or running errands for the household, nor that they sustained any pecuniary loss as a result of her failure to do so … .Klaar v Fedex Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01393, First Dept 3-3-22

 

,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RENEW ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANTS’ WINNING ARGUMENT WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to renew should have been granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was improperly granted based upon an argument first raised in reply papers:

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss … based on defendants’ argument raised for the first time in their reply to their motion to dismiss, that [the] operating agreement contained a provision wherein plaintiffs purportedly waived any past, present, and future conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs moved for leave to renew and reargue, claiming that the issue of the waiver provision was improperly raised for the first time in reply, and in substance was contradicted by another section of the operating agreement that provides, among other things, that no one other than the members can enforce any provision of the operating agreement against any member.

The motion to renew should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ claim that the waiver issue was improperly raised in defendants’ reply provides a reasonable justification for granting the renewal motion … . Upon renewal, defendants’ motion should be denied with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim … . Dismissal is warranted only where documentary evidence “conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” … . Mehra v Morrison Cohen LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 01396, First Sept 3-3-22

 

, ,

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

 

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