You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED SKATER, FELL WHEN HIS SKATE HIT A RUT AS HE WAS COACHING HOCKEY; DESPITE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT “INHERENT COMPULSION;” HE ALLEGED HE WAS DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THE PRACTICE AFTER COMPLAINING OF THE ROUGH ICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that evidence of “Inherent compulsion” raised a question of fact, despite the applicability of the assumption of risk doctrine. Plaintiff is an experienced skater who fell while coaching hockey when his skate hit a rut in the ice:

Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants made a prima facie showing that his claims were barred by assumption of the risk … . However, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to inherent compulsion. Plaintiff testified that he understood that his supervisors were [defendant’s] employees. He further testified that when he informed one of these supervisors of his concerns about the rough ice the supervisor dismissed his concerns and directed him to proceed with the practice. Plaintiff believed that he lacked authority to cancel or reschedule practice on his own initiative … . Stewart v Wollman Rink Operations LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06661, First Dept 11-30-21

 

, ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FORKLIFT ACCIDENT RESULTED FROM A HOLE OR CRACK IN THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S BUILDING; EVEN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IN A REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this forklift accident case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether the forklift struck a hole or a crack in the sidewalk. Under the NYC Administrative Code, an out-of-possession landlord is responsible for maintaining the adjacent sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition:

… [T]he Administrative Code requires owners of real property abutting any public sidewalk to maintain that sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition (Administrative Code § 7-210 …). This duty, on in- and out-of-possession landlords alike, is nondelegable … . The statute does not impose strict liability, and thus a plaintiff must still prove the elements of negligence in order to hold an owner liable … . Administrative Code § 19-101(d) defines “sidewalk” as “that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines” … . If the area where plaintiff’s accident occurred was either inside the premises or at an entrance that was within defendant’s property, the Administrative Code does not apply … . Vargas v Weishaus, 2021 NY Slip Op 06663, First Dept 11-30-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ELECTRIC BICYCLE WAS SOLD BY A THIRD-PARTY THROUGH AMAZON AND WAS ASSEMBLED BY AN APPROVED AMAZON PROVIDER, THERE IS NO THEORY UNDER WHICH AMAZON CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN INJURY CAUSED BY IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE BICYCLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, determined Amazon could not be held liable for an injury caused by an electric bicycle purchased through Amazon which apparently was not assembled properly. Eshion, a China-based company, listed the bicycle on Amazon. The purchaser, plaintiff’s father, elected to have the bicycle assembled. Codefendant Tri-State Assembly offers its assembly services on Amazon and was an Amazon approved service provider. Plaintiff alleged the bicycle was not assembled properly (by Tri-State) and plaintiff fell because the handlebars loosened while he was riding it:

The Uniform Commercial Code clearly provides that implied warranties only extend to sellers (see UCC 2-314 [1]; 2-315 … ). Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim fails because Amazon submitted sufficient documentary evidence and unrefuted affidavits from its representatives to establish prima facie that it did not sell, manufacture, distribute or assemble the bicycle.

The supporting affidavits indicate that, pursuant to contract, third-party sellers such as Eshion are responsible for all aspects of their sales, such as setting a price, describing the product being sold, and offering any warranties. In this case, Eshion sold the bicycle and shipped it directly to plaintiff. At no time was the bicycle ever in Amazon’s possession or control, nor did it ever obtain title to the bicycle (see UCC 2-106 [1]). Further, when placing orders all Amazon.com users agree to its Conditions of Use, wherein Amazon disclaims all warranties for products sold by third-party sellers.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Wallace v Tri-State Assembly, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06664, First Dept 11-30-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROVISIONS, THE ALLEGATIONS DID STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE MORE PROTECTIVE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a hostile work environment cause of action under the more protective New York City Human Rights Law, but not under the New York State Human Rights Law:

… [A]lthough the motion court properly concluded that it does not rise to the level of “severe and pervasive” under the applicable pre-2019 State HRL, plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact regarding the hostile work environment claims under the more protective City HRL … . There was evidence that in May and September 2015, several of plaintiff’s coworkers referred to him by using the Spanish word for “monkey,” a racially humiliating and degrading term. Further, the evidence suggested that other coworkers and supervisors, if not everyone at the restaurant, knew that certain employees were using that term to refer to plaintiff … . Under these circumstances, triable issues exist as to whether this rises above the level of a “truly insubstantial” case … . The evidence also raised triable issues as to whether plaintiff was treated differently from other employees of his ethnic background because of his skin color … .

… [T]riable issues of fact exist as to whether defendant was liable for the comments of its workers, and whether defendant took “immediate and appropriate corrective action” to prevent the conduct … . Pichardo v Carmine’s Broadway Feast Inc, 2021 NY Slip Op 06565, First Dept 11-23-21

 

, , ,

THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DEMONSTRATED (1) THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO MAINTAIN A DRAIN WHICH PERIODICALLY BECAME CLOGGED CAUSING GARBAGE TO FLOAT TO THE SIDEWALK, AND (2) IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE GARBAGE ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the out-of-possession landlord, SMHS, was not responsible for the fish skin on the sidewalk which allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall. The tenant, Lobster, a wholesale seafood company, had contracted with defendant Sanitation to remove garbage, including fish parts, from the tenant’s premises. There was a question of fact whether Sanitation was liable under a contract-based Espinal theory for launching an instrument of harm. But SMHS demonstrated the lease did not require SMHS to maintain the sidewalk or the drains which at times became clogged with garbage and that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition:

SMHS, an out-of-possession landlord, was not contractually obligated to maintain the premises … .Although its lease with Lobster did not demise to Lobster “the pipes, ducts, conduits, wires, fixtures and equipment, the structural elements which serve the Demised Premises,” SMHS and Lobster’s course of conduct establishes that Lobster was responsible for maintaining and repairing the trench drain … . Moreover, although the lease afforded SMHS a contractual right of reentry to make needed repairs, liability would not be predicated on “‘a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory provision'” … .

Nor can SMHS be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries under Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210, which imposes a nondelegable duty on land owners to maintain their sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition … . SMHS established … that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual notice of it or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Arias v Sanitation Salvage Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06534, First Dept 11-23-21

 

, ,

A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY AN ATTORNEY IS A “JUDICIAL” SUBPOENA SUBJECT TO A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WITHOUT THE NEED TO FIRST SEEK A COURT ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a subpoena issued by an attorney was a “judicial” subpoena and defendant Patterson’s failure to appear for a deposition and produce documents was punishable by contempt without the need to first obtain a court order compelling compliance:

Critical to the resolution of this appeal is whether this type of subpoena is a “judicial” subpoena, as defined by CPLR 2308(a), or a “non-judicial” subpoena, as defined by CPLR 2308(b). … [T]he disobedience of a judicial subpoena is punishable by contempt of court, while a person served with a non-judicial subpoena cannot be held in contempt unless the court first issues an order compelling compliance with the subpoena that is then disobeyed  … .

We find that the subpoena is a “judicial” subpoena, the disobedience of which is punishable by contempt … . CPLR 2308(a) embraces subpoenas issued by an officer of the court (such as an attorney) at any stage of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the subpoena was specifically returnable in court … . Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v Patterson, 2021 NY Slip Op 06535, First Dept 11-23-21

 

,

DEFENDANT HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWN TO THE GROUND AND HANDCUFFED AT THE TIME THE BACKPACK HE WAS WEARING WAS SEARCHED; THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF EXIGENCY; THE SEARCH WAS THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not demonstrate exigent circumstances which justified the search of the backpack he was wearing. The defendant had been taken down to the ground and handcuffed at the time of the search:

At the suppression hearing, when questioned as to why he patted down defendant and the drawstring backpack, the officer merely responded “[f]or our safety.” * * *

Exigency justifying the search of a container incident to arrest is not established in the absence of some reasonable basis for the belief that the contents of the container might pose a danger to the arresting officers or that there is a legitimate concern for the preservation of evidence which might reasonably be thought to reside within the container … . …

The record does not contain evidence or testimony supporting a determination that the officer had objective reasonable grounds to believe that the drawstring backpack contained contents that would place his safety at risk or that he was concerned that the bag contained evidence that defendant could destroy. Thus, the circumstances did not suggest that any exigency required an immediate search … . People v Collins, 2021 NY Slip Op 06552, First Dept 11-23-21

 

,

PROOF THE ELEVATOR DOOR MALFUNCTIONED WHEN PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE ELEVATOR DID NOT SUPPORT A PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s proof demonstrated that the elevator door malfunctioned at the time plaintiff attempted to enter the elevator. A malfunction is not enough to support a products liability cause of action:

Plaintiff Patricia Booth was injured when she was knocked to the ground when the doors to an elevator closed as she was attempting to enter the elevator; Otis had modernized the elevator eight years earlier. Otis established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim by submitting evidence that the elevator door at issue was not defective … .

… Crediting the testimony of plaintiff’s daughter that she was holding the door open button and that plaintiff had crossed the elevator threshold when the doors began to close, this establishes nothing more than a malfunction at the time of the accident, which is insufficient to maintain a strict products liability cause of action … . The fact that Otis “both supplied the elevator and serviced it after installation would not impose upon [it] strict liability for a defect which developed after installation was completed” … . Booth v Otis El. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 06433, First Dept 11-18-21

 

THE FACT THAT OSHA REQUIRES PROTECTION ONLY FOR FALLS MORE THAN SIX FEET WAS IRRELEVANT; PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM AN ELEVATED PLANK, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s fall from a plank, even if the fall was less than six feet, entitled him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action:

Even if, as [defendant] contends, plaintiff fell less than six feet, that does not render the statute inapplicable … , [Defendant’s] claimed compliance with OSHA regulations requiring fall protection only for falls of six feet or more is irrelevant … . The wooden plank from which plaintiff fell did not constitute a “passageway,” but “served, conceptually and functionally, as an elevated platform or scaffold” … . DaSilva v Toll First Ave., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06438 First Dept 11-18-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A DEMAND ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO PURSUE A DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS FUTILE; THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, A CLAIM FOR WHICH NO DAMAGES NEED BE ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirement that a demand on the board of directors to pursue a derivative action was futile and therefore is excused. In addition, the complaint adequately alleged a breach of fiduciary duty:

Plaintiffs properly alleged demand futility as required under Business Corporation Law § 626 (c) by asserting that at least four out of seven of the members of derivative plaintiff/nominal defendant Xerox Holdings Corporation’s board of directors were controlled by Icahn, Xerox’s largest single shareholder, and thus lacked the independence to make an impartial decision on bringing suit … . * * *

… [T]he claim for breach of fiduciary duty was pleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b), as the complaint states that the Icahn defendants used confidential information about Xerox’s planned acquisition of HP Inc. to buy HP common shares before news of the acquisition became public and before HP’s stock price increased … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ claims do not fail for lack of damages, as damages “have never been considered to be an essential requirement for a cause of action founded on a breach of fiduciary duty” … . The function of an action for breach of fiduciary duty “is not merely to compensate the plaintiff for wrongs committed by the defendant but . . . to prevent them, by removing from . . . trustees all inducement to attempt dealing for their own benefit in matters . . . to which their . . . trust relates” … . Miami Firefighters’ Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn, 2021 NY Slip Op 06446, First Dept 11-18-21

 

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