You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , , ,

THE ISSUE WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT OBJECTIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS BE RULED ON WITHIN 15 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; THE 15-DAY RULE IS MANDATORY AND MUST BE ENFORCED; THE MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BECAUSE HER ACTION WAS THE CATALYST FOR THIS DECISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined: (1) the issue whether objections to child support rulings must be ruled on within 15 days (Family Court Act 439(a)) will be considered on appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine; (2) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (CPLR 8600, et seq) mother-petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees because her action served as a catalyst to this decision enforcing the 15-day rule:

The mother has established that this is not the first time in this case that the issue has arisen. Further, the issue is not likely to be resolved without application of the exception, because the Family Court can so easily obviate it by issuing a decision on the objections, albeit after the expiration of the 15 days. Courts have applied the exception under similar circumstances … . * * *

The statute is mandatory insofar as it plainly states that the court “shall,” within 15 days of an objection to a support award being fully submitted, issue a ruling on it … . * * *

Because the CAJ [Chief Administrative Judge, NYC Family Court] responded to the mother’s petition by assigning a Family Court judge to rule on her objections, and because the CAJ offers no substantial justification for not having enforced Family Court Act § 439(e) before the petition was filed, the matter should be remanded for an assessment of the mother’s attorneys’ fees under the State EAJA. Matter of Liu v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06089, First Dept 11-9-21

 

THE FEDERAL DRUG CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 220.39 FOR SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER PURPOSES; IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS DECISION OVERRULED FIRST DEPARTMENT PRECEDENT, OR WHETHER A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT WOULD HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE TWO OFFENSES WERE EQUIVALENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the federal drug conviction was not the equivalent of a violation of Penal Law 220.39, Therefore the federal conviction could not be the basis for second felony offender status. It is not clear whether this decision overruled other First Department decisions to the contrary, or whether a review of the federal accusatory instrument would demonstrate an equivalency:

Defendant was adjudicated a second felony offender based on a federal conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 USC § 841(a)(1). That provision is not equivalent to Penal Law § 220.39 because the federal crime has a broader knowledge element, requiring only that the defendant “knowingly or intentionally . . . possess with intent to . . . distribute . . . a controlled substance,” as opposed to having particular knowledge of the drug type actually possessed … . The cases in which this Court has upheld 21 USC § 841(a)(1) as the equivalent of a New York felony did not address this discrepancy in the breadth of the knowledge element; other equivalency issues were raised in those cases … . People v Campanioni, 2021 NY Slip Op 06105, First Dept 11-9-21

 

, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS UNAFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the email exchange between attorneys constituted an enforceable settlement of the personal injury action which was unaffected by the subsequent granting of summary judgment to the defendants:

The settlement agreement was stated in an email communication in which plaintiffs’ counsel stated, “This is to confirm settlement in the sum of $275,000. Please send release language and parties to be released.” Later that day, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a follow-up email, stating, “Please confirm we are settled.” Sea Crest’s counsel responded, “Confirmed. I’ll have release information to you ASAP.” …

The emails, which reduced the settlement to a writing in accordance with CPLR 2104, were “subscribed” within the meaning of the statute, as the sender was identifiable and there was no contention that Sea Crest’s counsel did not send any of the emails intentionally … . Rawald v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 06109, First Dept 11-9-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the common-law indemnification action against defendant Ergonomic should have been granted because Ergonomic was not shown to be negligent or to have exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Portions of the floor were removed to access cables. Plaintiff alleged a leg of his ladder went into an area where the floor had been removed, causing him to fall. The First Department noted that coordinating and scheduling work does not rise to the level of supervision and control:

Ergonomic’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Owner Defendants’ third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution should have been granted. There was no evidence that Ergonomic was negligent or that it exercised actual supervision or control over the injury-producing work. Ergonomic did not perform any of the physical work and was not onsite at the time of the accident. To the extent it might have had authority to supervise the injury producing work, it never exercised such authority, but rather, had subcontracted such contractual duties to Quick, which actually directed and supervised the work … . The fact that Ergonomic scheduled and coordinated Quick’s and Atlas’s work is insufficient to give rise to liability, as the coordinating and scheduling of trades at work sites do not rise to the level of supervision and control necessary to impose liability under a negligence theory … . Balcazar v Commet 380, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06030, First Dept 11-4-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF-RELATOR BROUGHT A QUI TAM ACTION (ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT) AGAINST A BANK ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE QUI TAM ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; EVEN THOUGH THE CITY SETTLED WITH THE BANK IN A RELATED ACTION, PLAINTIFF-RELATOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined the plaintiff-relator, who brought a qui tam action against a bank alleging the bank violated the State Finance Law (re: foreign currency exchanges), was not entitled to a percentage of the related settlement reached by the bank and the city. The plaintiff-relator’s qui tam action had been dismissed for failure to state a claim which, pursuant to the terms of the relevant statute, precluded sharing in the settlement:

… [T]he City reached a $30 million settlement with defendants. The City made an offer of payment to relator. Relator rejected the offer, asserting that under the NYFCA, it was entitled to no less than 15% of the monies received. …

The NYFCA [New York False Claims Act] tracks the federal False Claims Act (31 USC § 3729 et seq.) (the Federal FCA). Accordingly, it is appropriate to look to federal law to interpret the NYFCA … . Federal authority holds that a relator who fails to state a viable claim under the Federal FCA is not entitled to recovery in an action brought by the government, even where that recovery stems from claims that overlap with the dismissed qui tam claims … . We are persuaded by this precedent and find that relator may not receive compensation under the NYFCA when its claims have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Comptroller of the City of N.Y. v Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06033, First Dept 11-4-21

 

,

IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OWED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE RELIED ON AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A BANK EMPLOYEE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELATED BUSINESS RECORDS; THE AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s computation of the amount owed in this foreclosure action was not supported by the record. The affidavit of the bank’s employee was based on business records which were not produced, rendering the affidavit hearsay:

Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to reject the referee’s report. The referee’s computations as to the amount due and owing to the plaintiff were not substantially supported by the record … . An affidavit of an assistant vice president of the plaintiff, which was submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion to establish the amount due and owing, constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the business records purportedly relied upon in making the calculations were not produced … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Barton, 2021 NY Slip Op 05939, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

THE CONTRACT OF SALE INCLUDED THE PURCHASER’S AGREEMENT TO FORFEIT THE DOWN PAYMENT IF SHE DID NOT CLOSE ON THE AGREED DATE; THEREFORE THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT; UNJUST ENRICHMENT CANNOT BE CLAIMED IN THE FACE OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to close on the date agreed to in the contract of sale was a default entitling defendants to retain the down payment:

Defendants submitted a signed copy of the contract of sale, which contains all the material terms, and the amendment to the contract, pursuant to which plaintiff agreed that, in exchange for additional time to close on the purchase, she would cover defendants’ carrying costs and would waive any right to recovery of the down payment if she did not close on the sale by the agreed-to date. Plaintiff did not close by the required date, and the balance of the down payment was remitted to defendants. Plaintiff’s failure to close by the agreed-to date constitutes a default under the purchase agreement and the amendment thereto, and the default entitles defendants to retain the down payment as liquidated damages pursuant to paragraph 13.1 of the purchase agreement and paragraph 5 of the amendment … .

Similarly, a claim for unjust enrichment will not stand in the face of the written agreement … . An appeal to equity is equally unavailing, since the law is established that “a vendee who defaults on a real estate contract without lawful excuse cannot recover his or her down payment” … . Jennings v Silfen, 2021 NY Slip Op 05923, First Dept 10-28-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE; HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD NOT AGREED ON THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SALE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a two justice dissent, determined the wife did not consent to the sale of the marital residence. There was never a meeting of the minds. Therefore Supreme Court should not have ordered the sale:

The husband’s proposed order contained many of the conditions imposed by Supreme Court in the order on appeal, including scheduled mandatory price reductions and required acceptance of certain offers. The wife’s proposed counter order, on the other hand, contained no proposed initial list price, no procedure for list price reduction or reevaluation, and no required acceptance of offers at any price level. As to a potential sale, the wife’s proposed counter order provided that the property “should either be listed for sale or the Wife shall advise the Husband in writing that she intends to buy-out his interest in the Townhouse” and, further, that “[t]he Townhouse will only be sold under the terms of an agreed Stipulation between the parties.”

The order on appeal reflects that Supreme Court adopted the husband’s order with minimal revisions, essentially rejecting the wife’s preconditions to the sale of the townhouse and imposing its own additional conditions. … [E]ven assuming arguendo that the dissent is correct that the wife initially agreed to the sale of the townhouse, she revoked her consent because the parties were unable to agree on the material terms of the sale … . Taglioni v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 05936, First Dept 10-28-21

 

,

ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE DO NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the assault and battery causes of action against the city did not require demonstration of a special duty owed plaintiffs by the police:

Plaintiff’s … causes of action sounded in assault and battery, and not negligence. Therefore, the question was not whether the police owed plaintiff a special duty … , but whether the force used against her was more than necessary under the circumstances … . Plaintiff’s deposition testimony concerning the police officers’ conduct toward her supported the elements of a claim for assault and battery … . While defendants did not specifically recall interacting with plaintiff, they described a situation where they were disbursing a large crowd that was gathering around three different fights going on at the same time. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiff may have been pushed or shoved during the course of that incident. “Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide” .. . Butler v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 05810, First Dept 10-26-21

 

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