You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT MOVED AND HE FELL; THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR 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 the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was standing at the top of the unsecured ladder when it moved and he fell. The fact that there were no witnesses to the accident did not raise a question fact because plaintiff’s testimony was not contradicted and his credibility was not called into question:

Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he worked at the top of the ladder, which was unsecured, it suddenly moved and fell, causing him to land on the floor and injure his shoulder. Plaintiff also testified that after he fell from the ladder, he stood it back up before his supervisor returned. The supervisor stated that upon his return to the room, plaintiff, who was standing next to the upright ladder, told him that the ladder was shaky and had fallen because no one was holding it.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The evidence established that defendant failed to provide a safety device to ensure that the ladder, which plaintiff was instructed to use, would remain upright while he worked. The evidence also showed that plaintiff fell off the ladder when it shifted and fell … . This evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and plaintiff was not obligated to show that the ladder itself was defective … . Molina v Chatham Towers, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06285, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a ladder-fall case, it is enough that the ladder was unsecured and moved. There is no need to show the ladder was defective.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DEMONSTRATED A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR NOT TIMELY FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE AFTER A NINETY-DAY DEMAND, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH RELIED ON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY TWO SOURCES, BUT DID NOT SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS FROM THOSE SOURCES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, although plaintiff offered a justifiable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue, plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Therefore the complaint should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged the defendants negligently failed to provide adequate mental health and substance abuse treatment to the decedent, who died of a drug overdose in a shelter owned and operated by defendants:

Following a period of over one year during which plaintiff failed to respond to their discovery demands, defendants served plaintiff with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days (see CPLR 3216[b]). Plaintiff failed to respond within the 90-day period, resulting in defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Although plaintiff’s counsel offered a justifiable excuse for the failure to file a note of issue following defendants’ service of 90-day notices, plaintiff failed to submit an adequate affidavit of merit demonstrating a meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants’ motions … . In her affidavit, plaintiff, who had no personal knowledge of the events in question, relied on two unnamed hearsay sources … . Plaintiff offered no excuse for failing to provide affidavits from the shelter residents who supplied her with the information upon which her affidavit was based … , and, in any event, she did not show that defendants’ negligence was “a substantial cause of the events” resulting in her son’s death … . Felipe v Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., 2025 NY Slip Op 06252, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: In seeking to avoid dismissal of a complaint for failing to timely file a note of issue after a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must offer a justifiable excuse and demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Here plaintiff’s counsel provided a justifiable excuse. But to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action plaintiff submitted an affidavit which relied on hearsay. Without affidavits from the sources of the hearsay, a meritorious cause of action was not demonstrated and the complaint should have been dismissed.

 

, , ,

THE PETITION ALLEGED THE DECEASED CO-TRUSTEE CONCEALED THE TRUST AND DISTRIBUTIONS TO THE TRUST BENEFICIARIES; PETITIONERS HAD STANDING TO SEEK DISGORGEMENT OF THE COMMISSIONS PAID TO THE DECEASED CO-TRUSTEE UNDER “BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY” AND “FAITHLESS SERVANT” THEORIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition alleging Kendall Chen, the deceased co-trustee of his father’s trust, breached his fiduciary duty to the trust and to the trust beneficiaries, and alleging a “faithless servant” claim, should not have been dismissed. Kendall allegedly concealed the existence of the trust from the beneficiaries (his children). Petitioners had standing to seek disgorgement of the commissions paid to Kendall:

The petition alleged that Kendall actively subverted the trust’s stated purpose insofar as, from 2000 until 2016, he concealed from his children the existence of the trust and the joint bank accounts into which distributions from the trust were made for each grandchild, and converted a significant portion of those funds for his personal financial benefit. If proven, Kendall’s conduct constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty to the trust (as well as to his children), and the trust may recover the commissions paid to him at a time when he was a faithless servant, even if the trust suffered no damages … .

Indeed, the trust was damaged by Kendall’s receipt of commissions at a time when he allegedly breached his fiduciary duty to the trust, and it is for that reason that petitioners have standing to seek disgorgement of the commissions paid to Kendall from 2000 to 2015. The corpus of the trust was diminished by the payment of the commissions when Kendall was diverting to himself the distributions intended for his children. …

We reject the estate’s argument that the faithless servant claim is unpreserved. The doctrine has a “close relationship and overlap” with breach of fiduciary duty, which petitioners did raise before the motion court … .  Matter of Chen, 2025 NY Slip Op 06255, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: Here it was alleged the co-trustee concealed the existence of the trust and distributions from the trust from his children, the beneficiaries of the trust. The petitioners had standing to seek disgorgement of the commissions paid to the co-trustee under “breach of fiduciary duty” and “faithless servant” theories.

 

, , ,

​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE BORROWER WAS DECEASED; BECAUSE, UNDER THE FACTS, A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WAS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR FILING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, THE REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE DID NOT HOLD THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IN ABEYANCE AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action must be dismissed as abandoned. Plaintiff argued that its request for a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 constituted “the taking of proceedings” within one year of the default and therefore dismissal of the action as abandoned was precluded. The First Department agreed that, under the circumstances contemplated by CPLR 3408, requesting a settlement conference would demonstrate the action was not abandoned. Here, however, CPLR 3408 did not apply because the borrower was deceased and the action was brought by an executor. Because CPLR 3408 did not apply, the request for a settlement conference did not qualify as “the taking of proceedings:”

… [T]his foreclosure action must be dismissed as abandoned, because plaintiff’s argument is premised on its mistaken assumption that it was required to file an RJI seeking a mandatory conference before it could move for a default judgment. …

… CPLR 3408(a)(1) requires a mandatory settlement conference in “a residential foreclosure action involving a home loan” where “the defendant is a resident of the property subject to foreclosure.” A mandatory conference is not required where the defendant does not reside at the property when the foreclosure action is commenced … . Watkins, the borrower, was not a resident of the property when the foreclosure action was commenced because he died two years earlier.

Additionally, a mandatory conference is required for “a home loan” which is defined, among other things, to include a requirement that “[t]he borrower is a natural person” (RPAPL 1304[6][a][1][i]). Here, the borrower was deceased when plaintiff commenced this action against Thomas in her capacity of executrix of Watkins’s estate. Thomas is neither a borrower, nor a natural person in this context … . Municipal Credit Union v Thomas, 2025 NY Slip Op 06260, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, where the criteria for a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 are met, a request for a conference within one year of a default will constitute “the taking of proceedings” and preclude dismissal of the action as abandoned. However where, as here, CPLR 3408 is inapplicable because the borrower is deceased, the request for a settlement conference did not constitute “the taking of proceedings” and did not preclude a finding of abandonment.

 

, ,

7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the 7/8 height-differential between the floor and the threshold was trivial as a matter of law in thus slip and fall case. The court noted that the NYC Building Code, which requires a height-differential of no more than 1/2 inch did not apply to the home which was purchased in 1980:

The 7/8-inch height differential between defendant’s kitchen tile floor and the door saddle is readily discernible from the photographs authenticated by plaintiff, and the alleged defect had none of the characteristics of a trap or snare … . Plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that she was not distracted and could see the door saddle before the accident. Plaintiff had repeatedly walked over the saddle in the days leading up to her accident and had noticed the raised condition of the door saddle … . Defendant was not required to provide an expert’s affidavit to make a prima facie showing that the height differential was trivial … . * * *

“Existing buildings are generally exempt from the provisions of the current [New York City Building Code] unless there is substantial renovation or change in use” … . Defendant testified that the linoleum flooring adjacent to the door saddle was changed to tile in the “late” 1990s. However, plaintiff’s professional engineer made no showing that changing the flooring constituted a substantial renovation or change in use causing the 2008, 2010, and 2022 Building Codes to apply. Mejias v Basch, 2025 NY Slip Op 06137, First Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Here a 7/8 inch height differential between the floor and a doorway threshold was deemed trivial as a matter of law and the slip and fall case was dismissed. The Building Code, which requires a height differential of no more than 1/2 inch, did not apply because the home was purchased before that building code provision was enacted.

 

, , ,

THE “REFRAIN FROM GANG-RELATED ASSOCIATIONS” PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE STRUCK BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD ANY CONNECTION WITH GANGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a probation condition imposed by the court must be stricken because it was not shown to be related to “defendant’s rehabilitative prospects:”​

Defendant’s challenges to two of his probation conditions as unrelated to his rehabilitation do not require preservation and survive his waiver of the right to appeal … . * * *

… [T]he probation condition requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation” must be stricken, as there is no evidence that defendant’s crime was connected to any gang activities or that he has any history of gang membership or gang … . Accordingly, this condition was not reasonably necessary to further defendant’s rehabilitative prospects based on his background and proclivities …. . People v Holguin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06141, First Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Challenges to probation conditions need not be preserved for appeal and survive a waiver of appeal.

Practice Point: The appellate courts will strike probation conditions which are not demonstrated to be relevant to the defendant’s offense. Two other decisions, not summarized here, were released this week in which the probation condition requiring defendant to financially support dependents was struck because it was not shown to be relevant to defendant’s rehabilitation for the charged offense. (People v Bonfante, 2025 NY Slip Op 06068, Second Dept 11-6-25;  People v Larkin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06077, Second Dept 11-6-25)

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT HE INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE BUILDING HE ENTERED AND REMAINED UNLAWFULLY; THEREFORE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF A STAY-AWAY ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s plea to attempted burglary, determined defendant’s plea allocution negated an essential element of the offense, thereby calling into question the voluntariness of the plea: Burglary requires the intent to commit a crime while unlawfully entering or remaining in a building. Defendant did not admit he intended to commit a crime in the building. The fact that he violated a stay-away order by entering the building was not sufficient:

During the plea allocution the court asked defendant if it was true that he knowingly entered and remained unlawfully at the premises, which is a dwelling, and attempted to commit a crime inside. Defendant responded, “That wasn’t my intent, but I did remain unlawfully.” Defense counsel then stated “Yes, there was a protective order which he violated.” The court then asked defendant, “That was with the intent to violate the order of protection, is that right”? Defendant responded, “Yes.”

A key element of burglary is establishing the defendant’s intent in entering or remaining unlawfully in a building to commit a crime therein … . The violation of a stay-away provision in an order of protection, alone, cannot, without more, be used to establish the requisite state of mind to elevate criminal trespass to a burglary … .

Once defendant denied his intent to commit a crime within the premises, the court was required to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea was, in fact, knowing and voluntary … . As the People concede, given that the court failed to inquire and improperly accepted the guilty plea, the plea must be vacated … . People v Gee, 2025 NY Slip Op 05924, First Dept 10-28-25

Practice Point: To constitute burglary, the defendant must intend to commit a crime when entering or remaining in a building. It is not enough that, by entering the building, the defendant violated a stay-away order. The defendant must have intended to commit a crime in the building.

 

PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD HE HAD BUILT COLLAPSED; DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROPERLY BUILD THE SCAFFOLD; THE RECALCITRANT-WORKER DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240(1) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Defendant raised the recalcitrant worker defense which the First Department found inapplicable. Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold when it collapsed. Defendant argued plaintiff disregarded instructions on how to construct the scaffold, a comparative-negligence argument which  will not defeat a summary judgment motion:

[Defendants’] reliance on the recalcitrant worker defense was misplaced because that defense requires a showing that plaintiff refused to use a safety device that was provided to him … . Defendants’ allegations that plaintiff disregarded instructions on how to properly build the scaffolding, built the scaffolding incorrectly, selected defective wood for its construction, and failed to have the scaffold inspected before its use, are insufficient to establish that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker … . Indeed, defendants failed to demonstrate whether the scaffolding, if properly constructed, constituted adequate protection under Labor Law § 240(1). Thus, the recalcitrant worker defense “has no application where, as here, no adequate safety devices were provided” … , and any conduct on plaintiff’s part would go to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Peralta v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05928, First Dept 10-28-25

Practice Point: The recalcitrant-worker defense only applies if plaintiff was provided with an adequate safety device and refuses to use it, not the case here.

 

, ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO RETURN THE CHILD TO MOTHER DURING THE PENDENCY OF NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS FOR THE CHILD’S RETURN WILL ENSURE THE CHILD’S SAFETY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s application during the neglect proceedings for the return of her child should have been denied:

Family Court’s finding that the child should be returned to the mother lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record … .  Although the court properly determined, based on the evidence of the child’s physical injuries and her statements, that the mother was the person who inflicted the injuries, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to determine that the risk of harm could be mitigated by the conditions it imposed on the mother in the order under review … .

The court improvidently minimized both the nature and extent of the risk to the child and overstated the potential impact of its order on the child’s safety. Nothing in the mother’s testimony indicated that she understood the emotional harm she caused the child or expressed any genuine remorse over her actions. Initially, she tried to attribute the child’s injuries to an unrelated incident that took place several months earlier. She then claimed to be unaware of how the injuries occurred and ultimately opted to “plead the fifth.” Taken as a whole, the mother’s testimony reflects a lack of insight into how her conduct led to the child’s removal from her care. This lack of understanding further undercuts Family Court’s conclusion that services would be sufficient to mitigate the risk of harm posed to the child while in the mother’s care, and its belief that the mother would comply with the service plan. Although the mother took steps to enroll in services, the mere enrollment is insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence indicating that returning the child to her care would pose a risk to the child’s health and safety. Matter of M.M. (Chelsea B.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05887, First Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court’s determination that imposing conditions for the child’s return to mother, who had injured the child, would ensure the child’s safety was not supported by the evidence. Therefore it was an abuse of discretion to order the child’s return to mother during the pendency of the neglect proceedings.​

 

,

THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WAIVER-OF-INDICTMENT PROCEDURE, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; PLEA VACATED; PLEA TO A SUBSEQUENT INDICTMENT INDUCED BY A CONCURRENT SENTENCE PROMISE VACATED AS WELL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions by guilty pleas, determined the failure to comply with the waiver-of-indictment procedure required vacation of the plea, as well as the vacation of a plea induced by a concurrent sentence promise:

The record fails to demonstrate compliance with CPL 195.20. There is no evidence that defendant signed the indictment waiver in open court when the plea was entered because it is not dated as the same day as the plea. The court’s order affirming compliance with CPL 195.10 and 195.20 is also not dated and the court did not confirm on the record that defendant signed the waiver or make any reference whatsoever to it at the time of the plea. …

The failure to comply with CPL 195.20 is a jurisdictional defect that requires reversal of the judgment of conviction and dismissal of the superior court information … .

… [D]ismissal of the information necessitates dismissal of defendant’s subsequent plea … . Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for a sentence of five years’ incarceration and five years’ postrelease supervision, to run concurrently … . Where, as here, a defendant’s guilty plea is “induced by the understanding that the sentence would be concurrent with the sentence imposed for [the prior] conviction, since set aside, the plea must be vacated” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 05902, First Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Failure to comply with the waiver-of-indictment procedure is a jurisdictional defect requiring vacation of the plea. A plea to a subsequent indictment induced by a concurrent sentence promise must also be vacated.

 

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