You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S BUILDING, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER, WHO ENTERED THROUGH AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR, OR A TENANT OR AN INVITEE; IF THE ASSAILANT WERE A TENANT OR INVITEE, THE ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR WOULD NOT BE A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case should have been granted. Although there was an issue of fact whether exterior doors to the apartment building were operable in the day plaintiff was assaulted, plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether the assailant was an intruder, as opposed to a tenant:

While plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether the building’s entrance doors were operable on the day of the incident, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact that the assailant was an intruder who gained access to the building through a negligently maintained entrance. Plaintiff testified that the assailant was masked and hooded, with only his eyes and the tip of his nose visible. Plaintiff admitted that she could not identify the assailant. Although plaintiff saw the assailant flee down the stairs, towards the 19th floor, she did not see him exit the building and does not know where he went … . Under the circumstances, no triable issue of fact exists because there is no evidence from which a jury could conclude, without pure speculation, that the assailant was an intruder, as opposed to a tenant or invitee … . Astupina v West Farms Sq. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03542, First Dept, 6-8-21

 

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DIRECTING THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal directing plaintiff to file a note of issue did not meet the statutory requirements of CPLR 3216 and, therefore, the action should not have been dismissed:

The conditional order of dismissal directing plaintiff to file a note of issue by February 28, 2019 or the action would be dismissed failed to adhere to the statutory procedure for dismissing an action for failure to file a note of issue. Specifically, the conditional order of dismissal failed to provide plaintiff with the requisite 90 days to file a note of issue, failed to specify the conduct constituting the neglect demonstrating a general pattern of delay, and did not constitute the requisite written notice because it was not signed by the parties (see CPLR 3216[a], [b][3] … ). Flecha v Neira, 2021 NY Slip Op 03548, First Dept 6-8-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 193, IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES, AND LABOR LAW 215, TERMINATION FOR COMPLAINING OF THE IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for violation of Labor Law 193 by making improper deductions from earned wages, and Labor Law 215, by firing plaintiff after she complained of unlawful deductions:

… [P]laintiff alleged that defendants “impermissibly and unlawfully made deductions from [her] wages including the operating costs and expenses of OFRM [her employer] such as, among other things, credit card fees, bank services bills and electric bills.” She also alleged that her draw and net bonus payments constituted “earned wages,” and that defendants had “unlawfully made deductions from [her] [w]ages.” …

Under Labor Law § 193(1)(b), “[n]o employer shall make any deduction from the wages of an employee, except deductions which . . . are expressly authorized in writing by the employee and are for the benefit of the employee.” In order to state a claim for a violation of § 193, “a plaintiff must allege a specific deduction from wages and not merely a failure to pay wages” … . Additionally, a “‘deduction is more targeted and direct than the wholesale withholding’ of wages” … . * * *

Labor Law § 215 provides, in pertinent part, that no employer “shall discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate against any employee (i) because such employee has made a complaint to his or her employer . . . that the employer has engaged in conduct that the employee, reasonably and in good faith, believes violates any provision of [the Labor Law].” Schmidt-Sarosi v Offices for Fertility & Reproductive Medicine, P.C., 2021 NY Slip Op 03564, First Dept 6-8-21

 

ALLEGED MISHANDLING OF DECEDENT’S BODY BEFORE PLAINTIFF TOOK CUSTODY OF IT SUPPORTED THE RIGHT OF SEPULCHER CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the “right of sepulcher” cause of action properly survived summary judgment:

The record demonstrates that there are factual issues as to whether defendant improperly dealt with the decedent’s body. In his deposition testimony, plaintiff described viewing the body of the decedent, his father, in a closet-like room where supplies were kept. Plaintiff testified that his father’s hands and feet were bound, his stomach had become bloated, he was dirty and unshaven, and a tube was placed down his throat. The decedent’s longtime companion further testified that the area where the body was kept “seemed like [a] garbage dump.” This alleged mishandling and presentation of the body is, contrary to our dissenting colleague’s view, sufficient to raise a factual issue requiring resolution at trial … . * * *

… [T]he right of sepulcher safeguards the surviving next of kin’s right to find “solace and comfort in the ritual of burial” … . Burial rituals involve more than simply placing a body in its final resting place. Indeed, one need only consider the Catholic practice of holding a wake or vigil, or the ritual cleansing of a body following death by Jews and Muslims, as examples of the ways in which human tradition has shown respect to the dead in the moments preceding burial itself… . That plaintiff ultimately took custody of the decedent’s body in a timely fashion does not assuage the harm caused by defendant’s having allegedly improperly dealt with it. Almeyda v Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03521, First Dept 6-3-21

 

SUBPOENAS RELATING TO CROSS CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined subpoenas that related to cross claims should not have quashed

[Defendant’s] motion to quash the nonparty subpoenas … to obtain information related to … cross claims … (CPLR 3101[a][4]) should have been denied. Although the subpoenaed information was unrelated to the interpleader action, in New York, cross claims “may be asserted between defendants for any cause of action at all, whether or not related to the plaintiff’s main claim” ( … CPLR 3019[b]). As the requested information is relevant to the pending cross claims, they could be properly subpoenaed. Thus, we remand the matter for discovery to the extent the requested information is “material and necessary” to the cross claims (CPLR 3101[a][4] …). Feiger v Ray Enters., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03525, First Dept 6-3-21

 

,

THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that where an examination under oath (EUO) is scheduled before the insurance company’s of a claim form, the insurer need not submit the proof of mailing in compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 to obtain a default declaratory judgment. It was determined the underlying traffic accident was staged and claimant did not appear at scheduled EOU’s:

As to claimant Ronald Marcellus, plaintiff additionally provided sufficient proof that he failed to appear for an examination under oath (EUO) despite receiving proper notice, which vitiates the policy … . Generally, an insurer must provide proof that the EUO requests were timely mailed, within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms, in compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 in order to obtain a default declaratory judgment … . However, that requirement does not apply where, as here, the EUOs are scheduled prior to the insurance company’s receipt of a claim form … . Since Marcellus failed to appear on two or more occasions and the EUO requests were sent prior to plaintiff’s receipt of a claim form, plaintiff did not need to demonstrate compliance for the verification requests under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Surgicore of Jersey City, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03536, First Dept 6-3-21

 

THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO CLEAN THE HOTEL LOBBY LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY POURING CLEANING SOLUTION ON THE FLOOR AND FAILING TO PUT DOWN MATS OR POST WARNINGS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant cleaning contractor launched an instrument of harm by pouring cleaning solution on the floor in this slip and fall case. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the contractor:

Plaintiff alleged [the cleaning contractor] poured a large amount of cleaning solution onto the lobby’s floor without barricading the location to prevent hotel guests from entering the area while he was cleaning, failed to place down safety mats to provide people with a safe passage through the area while the floor was wet, and failed to post appropriate warning signs.

There is video surveillance footage of the accident; no party disputes that the floor was dry when plaintiff first walked through the area to enter the restroom and that it was wet when he returned about five minutes later.

Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment as against Town House, the outside cleaning contractor, since the evidence showed that Town House’s employee launched a force or instrument of harm by negligently mopping or leaving a puddle of water near the guest elevators in the lobby before plaintiff’s fall … . Tobola v 123 Wash., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03537, First Dept 6-3-21

 

, ,

THE RECENT US SUPREME COURT CASE HOLDING THAT A STATE MUST CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST IT IN A SISTER STATE DID NOT AFFECT THE DOCTRINE OF “WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY;” HERE NEW JERSEY WAIVED THE DOCTRINE BY PARTICIPATING IN THE FIRST TRIAL OF THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, in a comprehensive discussion which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined the defendant, New Jersey Transit, had waived sovereign immunity by participating in the first trial of this traffic accident case. The fact that, since the first trial, the US Supreme Court ( the Hyatt case) held a state may not be sued in a sister state without consent (the “consent to the jurisdiction of a sister state” issue) did not require a different result on the “waiver of sovereign immunity” issue:

There is no dispute that New Jersey Transit did not make a voluntary appearance in this action. It then argues that it made no clear statement by its litigation conduct that it was submitting to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, pointing out that it has taken a defensive posture from this action’s inception because it had no legitimate legal basis for objecting to New York’s jurisdiction until seven years after the action was commenced, when Hyatt was decided, in 2019. These arguments are an oversimplification of this substantive constitutional issue. The issue is whether New Jersey Transit undertook a litigation strategy that can be deemed a voluntary waiver of its sovereign immunity. * * *

We reject New Jersey Transit’s argument that the sovereign immunity defense was not available at the time it served its answer in this action. The doctrine of sovereign immunity as it applies to states has been available at least since … 1979. The Hyatt Court dramatically altered the sovereign immunity analysis … . Hyatt did not, however, give birth to the doctrine. We cannot help but see the obvious unfair tactical advantage of conceding liability and losing at the first trial on damages and then seeking dismissal of the second trial on damages several years later, based not on the merits of the action but on an alleged “new” defense of sovereign immunity. Belfand v Petosa, 2021 NY Slip Op 03522, First Dept 6-3-21

 

, , ,

THE JURY’S FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NEGLIGENT BUT THAT DEFENDANT WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DOCTOR TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT’S DOCTOR WAS HIRED BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY, WITHOUT GIVING A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION, WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering a new trial on liability and damages in this slip and fall case, determined the finding that plaintiff was negligent but that defendant was 100% responsible was against the weight of the evidence. In addition, allowing plaintiff’s physician to mention that defendant’s physician was hired by an insurance company was reversible error. Both parties had requested Pattern Jury Instruction (PJI) 2:36 on comparative fault. The judge denied that request and instructed the jury with PJI 2:90 which addresses comparative fault. The First Department did not find the denial of the request for PJI 2-36 was error, but noted that the jury clearly misunderstood the concept of comparative fault. Plaintiff alleged she tripped over a stool which was two-feet high:

It is clear that the jury’s verdict, finding that plaintiff was negligent, but that her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident was against the weight of the evidence, and indicates that the jury had a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of comparative negligence. In this case, “the issues of negligence and proximate cause are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause.” * * *

Evidence that a defendant carries liability insurance is generally inadmissible, as it is both collateral and prejudicial … . The passing reference to insurance or similar benefits will not necessarily result in reversal … . However, if the testimony goes beyond mere mention of insurance, then a mistrial may be warranted … . Here, plaintiff’s doctor’s testimony, together with the court’s failure to immediately give a curative instruction was prejudicial, and constituted reversible error, further warranting a new trial. Campbell v St. Barnabas Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03404, First Dept 6-1-21

 

, ,

THE PORTION OF THE NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT WHICH PROHIBITED ENGAGING IN A SIMILAR PRACTICE OF LAW WITHIN 90 MILES OF NYC FOR 36 MONTHS WAS NULL AND VOID; HOWEVER THE PORTION WHICH PROHIBITED THE SOLICITATION OF CLIENTS WAS ENFORCEABLE AND SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that, although part of the noncompete agreement was null and void, the prohibition of soliciting plaintiff’s clients was enforceable. Therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Plaintiff Feiner & Lavy, P.C., is a law firm that specializes in immigration law. Defendant Gadi Zohar, Esq. was a former associate attorney with plaintiff, and defendant Jihan Asli was its office manager for several years before joining Zohar’s law firm, Zohar Law PLLC. … According to plaintiff, the employment agreement prohibited Zohar from engaging in any business that conducts the same or similar business as plaintiff for a period of 36 months, within 90 miles of New York City or in the Israeli community. The agreement also purported to prohibit Zohar from directly or indirectly soliciting any business from customers or clients of plaintiff for a period of 36 months within 90 miles of New York City or in the Israeli community; or advertise on Israeli/Hebrew websites, TV or newspaper ads. * * *

Rule 5.6(a)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct … bars lawyers from “participat[ing] in offering or making a partnership, shareholder, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship,” except under limited circumstances that are not relevant to this appeal. To the extent the noncompete provision in the employment agreement that Zohar executed with plaintiff seeks to prevent him from “conducting business activities that are the same or similar to those of [plaintiff]” within 90 miles of New York City or in the Israeli community, it is void and unenforceable … .

However, the noncompete clause here may be enforceable to the extent that it prohibits Zohar from soliciting plaintiff’s clients … . Feiner & Lavy, P.C. v Zohar, 2021 NY Slip Op 03407, First Dept 6-1-21

 

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