You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

SILENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WAIVER; HERE THE NONPARTY DID NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE COMMON INTEREST, WORK PRODUCT OR TRIAL PREPARATION PRIVILEGES WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined silence did not constitute waiver of common interest, work product or trial preparation privileges with respect to subpoenaed documents:

“Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right and should not be lightly presumed” … . Accordingly, waiver should not be found absent “evidence from which a clear manifestation of intent . . . to relinquish [the right in question] could be reasonably inferred” … . Waiver “will . . . [not] be implied unless the opposite party is misled to his or her prejudice into the belief that a waiver was intended” … ; hence, a finding of waiver cannot be based upon “mere silence or oversight,” or upon “mistake, negligence or thoughtlessness” … . The burden of proving waiver rests with the party asserting it … . * * *

… [I]t is not alleged that appellant or his counsel expressly orally waived the privilege claims at issue, nor does the record reflect that appellant engaged in any gamesmanship with respect to his privilege claims or that he ever “misled [defendants-respondents] to [their] prejudice into the belief that a waiver was intended” … . Homapour v Harounian, 2021 NY Slip Op 07080, First Dept 12-21-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT ALLEGED INJURY IN AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM RUN BY TWO TEACHERS; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THE PRINCIPAL’S APPROVAL OF THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYC Department of Education (DOE) was immune from suit by a student who alleged injury in an afterschool program run two teachers (Polanish and Gallagher) called “Mind, Body & Sport” (MBS). The school principal’s approval of the program was a discretionary act and no special duty was owned plaintiff:

The school principal’s granting of a permit for MBS to operate on school grounds was a discretionary action taken during the performance of a governmental function, and thus, the DOE was shielded from liability by the doctrine of governmental immunity … . Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the DOE owed the infant plaintiff a special duty that would render the DOE liable to plaintiffs for negligent acts … . Likewise, as to the MBS flyer, the DOE cannot be held liable through the doctrine of apparent authority for issuance of the flyer without the required disclaimer. As with the approval of the permit, the school principal’s approval of the MBS flyer involved the exercise of her reasoned judgment and discretionary authority, thus entitling DOE to governmental function immunity … .

The DOE also cannot be held liable for negligently supervising Polanish and Gallagher’s conduct during the MBS program. That the DOE permitted MBS to run as an afterschool program on school grounds does not provide a basis for holding the DOE liable, since “[a] defendant generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others, even where as a practical matter defendant can exercise such control” … . R.K. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07092, First Dept 12-21-21

 

, ,

THE OWNER OF THE OLD BRONX COURTHOUSE HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY OVER THE SIDEWALK/STREET ABUTTING THE COURTHOUSE, DESPITE THE “DEMAPPING” OF THE ABUTTING STREET AND THE CONVEYANCE OF THE “DEMAPPED” STREET TO THE DEFENDANT; THE ACTION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO QUIET TITLE TO THE OWNER’S LAND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the plaintiff’s action claiming ownership of, or an easement over, the sidewalk/street area abutting plaintiff’s property (the old Bronx courthouse) was properly dismissed, with exception of the claim of an easement by necessity. The street abutting the courthouse had been “demapped” by the city and conveyed to defendants before plaintiff purchased the courthouse property. The deed description of the courthouse property was unambiguous and was not altered by a hand-drawn circle around the property on the recorded tax map. The action was not precluded by the statute of limitations because it is an action to quiet title to the plaintiff’s land:

… [W]here, like here, the owner is in possession, the right of action to remove a cloud on title is a continuous one accruing from day to day, and this right is not barred by the statute of limitations until the cloud is continued without interruption for a length of time sufficient to effect a change of title as a matter of law … . “The reason for this rule is that while the owner in fee continues subject to an action, proceeding, or suit on the adverse claim, he or she has a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of such claim and its effect on his or her title, or to assert any superior equity in his or her favor”… . Accordingly, the owner may wait until his or her possession is disturbed, or his or her title is attacked, before taking steps to vindicate his or her right … . “The requirement of prompt action is imposed as a policy matter upon persons who would challenge title to property rather than those persons who seek to quiet title to their land” … . * * *

… [T]he deed contains no reference to the altered Tax Map, with the hand-drawn circle, purportedly intended to change the boundaries of the property. Nor is there any indication on the altered Tax Map of the circle’s purpose. If the parties wanted to change the boundaries of the property described in the deed and Current Tax Map to include a surrounding demapped street, they could easily have done so by making such notation on the deed and altered Tax Map. Liberty Sq. Realty Corp. v The Doe Fund, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07082, First Dept 12-21-21

 

, , ,

PETITIONER ALLEGED HIS ARREST WARRANT WAS BASED UPON FALSE ATTESTATIONS AND SOUGHT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLEGING FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; THE CITY WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ACTION BY VIRTUE OF THE CITY-PERSONNEL’S INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING THE WARRANT AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTS; THE REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim against the respondent City of New York in this false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution action was properly granted. The main issue was whether the city had timely notice of the claim, and therefore was not prejudiced by the delay. Petitioner alleged the arrest warrant was based upon false information. The First Department noted it was not following its prior 2021 decision:

Respondent’s agents procured the allegedly false warrant upon attestations as to probable cause, executed the allegedly false arrest, and generated the reports pertaining thereto; the prosecutor would have had access to those same records and examined same in connection with preparing its opposition to defendant’s motions and in preparing more generally for trial. Indeed, personnel from the special narcotics prosecutor were present during the arrest. Under these circumstances, “knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims within the statutory period can be imputed to the City” … . …

Pursuant to investigatory procedures, the officers, agents, assistant district attorneys, and investigators who were involved in petitioner’s arrest, detention, and prosecution were required to contemporaneously record factual details, including those related to any probable cause determination, so that the District Attorney’s Office might properly evaluate the merits of a potential criminal prosecution and draft an accusatory instrument.  …

While the mere existence of a report under certain circumstances might be insufficient to impute actual knowledge, here those reports were generated by those very persons who engaged in execution of the allegedly false arrest warrant and whose conduct forms the basis of petitioner’s suit. To the extent Matter of Singleton v City of New York (198 AD3d 498 [1st Dept 2021]) differs, we decline to follow it. If we are to depart from settled principle, we should do so explicitly and not on the basis of a one-paragraph memorandum opinion that does not cite or discuss the relevant precedent let alone express an intent to overrule it. Matter of Orozco v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07066, First Dept 12-16-21

,

DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ADMISSION BEFORE THE MOTION COURT THAT HE DID NOT PROPERLY INVESTIGATE THIS MURDER CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE OR THAT THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVENESS MET THE CRITERIA FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined defendant did not demonstrate his attorney provided ineffective assistance, despite the attorney’s statements to the trial court acknowledging his failure to timely investigate the case, which led to his request to file a late alibi notice (the request was granted). The defendant told the trial court he did not want to change attorneys. And the trial court appointed a co-counsel. The First Department also rejected the unusual argument that defense counsel’s ineffectiveness constituted a conflict of interest:

… [D]efendant has not shown how defense counsel’s performance deprived him of a fair trial. Defense counsel’s self-proclaimed failures to properly investigate and prepare this murder case for trial are disturbing. Nevertheless, defendant has not shown that counsel’s lapses deprived him of any useful information or negatively impacted his ability to mount a defense. Defendant only speculates that a proper investigation and trial preparation might have yielded something helpful to the defense, but he does not suggest what that exculpatory information might be … . …

Defendant concedes that the conflict here is “not typical” as it is “derived from and centered on [defense counsel’s] ineffectiveness.” … Defendant argues that the conflict occurred when his counsel refused to withdraw from representation for personal reasons, despite conceding that he did not effectively investigate the case and prepare for trial. However, defendant cannot “demonstrate that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” … . After defense counsel declined to withdraw and defendant noted that he wished to proceed with counsel, the motion court appointed cocounsel to assist the defense … . … [T]he defense was not affected by operation of the conflict because after defense counsel declined to withdraw, defense counsel and cocounsel effectively represented defendant at trial. People v Graham, 2021 NY Slip Op 07068, First Dept 12-16-21

 

AFTER PLEADING GUILTY IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT, A SECOND PLEA TO ANOTHER COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT WAS PRECLUDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the relevant count, determined initial pleas in full satisfaction of the charges in the indictment precluded a second plea to another count in the indictment:

As the People concede, defendant’s first plea, to one count of third-degree sale of a controlled substance, was in full satisfaction of the entire indictment, so that defendant’s later plea to a second count of that indictment was not permissible … . When the second plea court sought to add a plea to an additional count as part of a renegotiated disposition conditioned on drug treatment, it could only have done so by “reinstatement. . . [of the indictment] which could have been accomplished by permitting the defendant to withdraw his original plea of guilty to [the first count]” … . People v Turane, 2021 NY Slip Op 07071, First Dept 12-16-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING PORT AUTHORITY FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE IN A SAFE CONDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging defendant Port Authority breached its duty to maintain the George Washington Bridge (GWB) in a reasonably safe condition must be reinstated. Plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide by jumping from the bridge:

Plaintiff’s decedent died by suicide when he jumped from the George Washington Bridge (GWB), which is owned and operated by the Port Authority. Contrary to the Port Authority’s contention that the complaint is addressed to actions taken in its governmental capacity, both this Court and the Second Department have recently held, in cases involving similar facts, that the Port Authority’s responsibility for maintaining the guardrail on the pedestrian walkway over the Bridge is a proprietary function rather than a governmental function … . .. [P]laintiff states a cause of action by alleging that the Port Authority, as a property owner, “failed to maintain the GWB in a reasonably safe condition by negligently failing to install suicide barriers along the walkways to prevent suicides,” thus presenting a foreseeable risk of harm in light of the allegations concerning the history of the George Washington Bridge’s walkway as a place where frequent suicides occur. Lomtevas v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06953, First Dept 12-14-21

 

, , ,

IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED TIME AND TESTIMONY RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court and ordering a new hearing in this family offense proceeding, determined the judge should not have placed time and testimony restrictions on the hearing:

Order of fact-finding and disposition … , which, after a hearing, determined that respondent husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, and entered a one-year order of protection directing him … to refrain from assaulting or harassing petitioner wife and the parties’ two children … , unanimously reversed … .

Family Court erred in not conducting a full fact-finding hearing. The court improperly restricted the hearing, without notice to the parties to just 15-20 minutes and limited the testimony, including that of petitioner wife. Given this, Family Court is directed to conduct a full hearing on the petition and make the requisite factual findings … . Matter of Kristina M. v Paul M., 2021 NY Slip Op 06957, First Dept 12-14-21

 

,

A CLAIM WHICH ARISES AFTER THE FILING OF A BANKRUPTCY PETITION BELONGS TO THE DEBTOR, NOT TO THE BANKRUPCTY ESTATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, noting its prior rulings to the contrary, determined a claim which arises after the filing of a bankruptcy petition belongs to the debtor, not the bankruptcy estate:

This Court has previously held that a claim which arose after the filing of a bankruptcy petition was the property of the estate (see Barranco v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d 281, 282 [1st Dept 2008]; Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197, 198 [1st Dept 2004]). When those cases were decided, there was a split among the federal courts which had addressed the issue. However, there is now uniformity among the Federal Courts of Appeals, which have held that pursuant to section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a claim which arose after the filing of a bankruptcy petition belongs to the debtor and not the estate … . As this Court is bound by federal law when making a determination on this issue … we follow the … federal holdings and find that because the claims at issue arose after the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the claims belong to Realty [plaintiff]. Thus, Realty has the capacity to sue [defendants]. Moncho v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 06960, First Dept 12-14-21

 

,

THE ARRESTING DETECTIVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS AS THE DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the arresting detective should not have been allowed to identify the person depicted in two surveillance videos as the defendant:

The court should not have permitted the arresting detective to give lay opinion testimony that defendant was the person depicted in two surveillance videos. In this case, the alleged difference in appearance — the addition of eyeglasses — was de minimis, and the jury had access to photos of defendant without eyeglasses … . The People do not point to any case in which lay opinion testimony was permitted based on such a slight change in appearance. Moreover, “no other circumstance suggested that the jury, which had ample opportunity to view defendant, would be any less able than the [officer] to determine whether he was seen in the videotape” … . Indeed, at the time of trial, the arresting detective was a 20-year veteran of the force and had 14 years experience investigating robberies and burglaries on the Lower East Side, where the incident occurred. He had made nearly 600 arrests and assisted in approximately 200 others. Stating twice that the perpetrator in this case was defendant carried significant weight in the eyes of the jury. Although the court provided limiting instructions, “[t]ruly prejudicial evidence cannot be erased from a juror’s mind by the court’s instructions” … . People v Challenger, 2021 NY Slip Op 06927, First Dept 12-9-21

 

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