You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was not adequately warned about the risks of representing himself:

The record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … , including the potential for his sentences in two pending cases, arising from unrelated incidents, to run consecutively. The court also failed to inquire into defendant’s understanding of “the nature of the charges” … . This despite defendant’s admission that he did “[n]ot necessarily” understand the charges in one case and was “still coming to grips with the charges” in the other case. The court’s statement during the waiver colloquy that defendant was “facing felony charges” was inadequate for that purpose.

Moreover, the court’s inquiry did not “accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant. While there is no mandatory “catechism for this inquiry,” there must be a “searching inquiry” conducted by a court before permitting self-representation … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. People v Perry, 2021 NY Slip Op 05826, First Dept 10-26-21

 

,

THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS GUARDIAN BY A NON-FAMILY-MEMBER IN THE ABSENCE OF A TESTIMONIAL HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Incapacitated Person’s (IP’s) son should not have been removed as guardian and replaced with a non-family-member in the absence of a testimonial hearing:

Rather than hold a testimonial hearing, Supreme Court simply accepted what the Court Examiner claimed in her motion. The Court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law to justify the removal of petitioner. Nor did it hold that removal of the petitioner was in the best interest of the IP. Petitioner did not have any opportunity to testify under oath, or rebut the allegations made against him, despite his competency as a guardian being directly at issue … . A testimonial hearing in this case is necessary so that the record can be developed, and the disputed issues of fact and law can be resolved.

We have long recognized that strangers will not be appointed either a guardian of the person or the property unless it is impossible to find someone within the family circle who is qualified to serve  … . The preference for a relative may be overridden by a showing that the guardian-relative has rendered inadequate care to the IP, has an interest adverse to the IP or is otherwise unsuitable to exercise the powers necessary to assist the IP … . Moreover, the ultimate remedy of removal may be an abuse of discretion, where a guardian’s errors do not prejudice or harm the estate. The court should also consider whether other less drastic remedies, such as ordering compliance or reducing the guardian’s compensation, would be appropriate. Matter of Roberts v Maxis, 2021 NY Slip Op 05833, First Dept 10-26-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM TWO INCIDENTS: A FORM FELL OFF A WALL ONTO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE GRINDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of causes of action should have been granted. Two separate incidents were alleged: (1) a concrete form fell three to five feet off a wall onto plaintiff; and (2) plaintiff was injured after he was directed to use a defective grinder:

… [Plaintiff] had been instructed to clean up debris directly underneath a form used for concrete, and that the form came off the wall and fell on top of him from a height of three to five feet … . Plaintiff’s inability to explain precisely what caused the form to fall on him does not preclude Labor Law § 240(1) liability … . Plaintiff demonstrated that he was injured when the steel and plywood form fell on him because an elevation-related safety device failed, or no device was placed and operated so as to provide him with adequate protection … .

… [P]laintiff was not required to supply an expert affidavit … . …

Plaintiff was directed to use a visibly defective grinder that had no blade, safety guard or side handle. There was also no cut-off switch. While he was using the grinder, it spontaneously cut off and then turned back on, without plaintiff engaging the power switch. When plaintiff complained, he was instructed to proceed with the defective grinder or go home. Viruet v Purvis Holdings LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05840, First Dept 10-26-21

 

,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION TO QUIET TITLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE PURSUANT TO RPAPL ARTICLE 15 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint seeking to quiet title should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion. The complaint stated a cause of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15:

… [T]he court should not have converted defendant’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3211(c), since plaintiffs did not agree to “charting a summary judgment course,” and the case did not involve a “purely legal question without any disputed issues of fact” … . Conversion of the motion prejudiced plaintiffs, who had no opportunity to respond to the contentions raised by defendant for the first time in reply … . …

“To maintain a cause of action to quiet title [to real property], a plaintiff must allege actual or constructive possession of the property and the existence of a removable cloud on the property, which is an apparent title to the property, such as in a deed or other instrument, that is actually invalid or inoperative” (…see RPAPL 1515; RPAPL 1501[1]). Here, the complaint adequately alleges facts that, if established, could support a finding that plaintiffs attained equitable title arising from the contract of sale they allegedly entered into with codefendant … for 25% of the property, as well as their payment of the agreed price and exclusive and actual occupancy of an apartment in the property … . Davis v Augoustopoulos, 2021 NY Slip Op 05772, First Dept 10-21-21

 

,

RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the retrial and dismissing the indictment, determined the trial court’s failure to procure defendant’s consent to discharge the jury after defendant’s motion for a mistrial with prejudice triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Double jeopardy bars a retrial except as to a defendant who has requested or consented to the mistrial … . Here, the record does not show that either defendant consented to a mistrial without prejudice. Defendants initially made general motions for a mistrial, but on the next day they expressly limited their motions to requests for a mistrial with prejudice. Accordingly, when the court announced its ruling shortly afterwards, it should have obtained defendants’ unequivocal consent before discharging the first jury or else have continued the trial with the same jury … . The retrial thus violated the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, and these prohibitions require reversal of defendants’ convictions and dismissal of the indictment … . Defendants’ double jeopardy claim does not require preservation, although it may be expressly waived … . However, there was no such waiver here. People v Lantigua, 2021 NY Slip Op 05671, First Dept 10-19-21

 

,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE DID NOT SEE THE PEDESTRIAN HE STRUCK UNTIL AFTER THE CONTACT OCCURRED; DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY-DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined defendant’s allegations did not support the “emergency” defense in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case:

Defendant maintains that he did not see plaintiff before she was struck by his vehicle and that she was not in the crosswalk when he began turning onto the avenue; it was only after plaintiff was struck that defendant observed her in the crosswalk. “Without having perceived or reacted to any emergency, the defendant may not rely on the emergency doctrine to excuse [his] conduct” … . De Diaz v Klausner, 2021 NY Slip Op 05624, First Dept 10-14-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO STAB THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault convictions, determined the evidence defendant shared the co-defendant’s intent to stab the victim was insufficient:

Defendant’s convictions of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, charged under an acting in concert theory, were not supported by legally sufficient evidence …  These charges required proof that when the codefendant stabbed the victim, defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to do so; defendant was not convicted of any assault crimes where his liability was based on his intent to commit robbery. During a robbery attempt, the codefendant stabbed the victim from behind several times with a small knife. However, there was no evidence that defendant, who was standing in front of the victim and restraining him, knew that the codefendant had a knife or was planning to use it. “[T]he use of the knife was not open and obvious” … , and defendant released the victim within seconds of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, the record does not support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of the use of the knife but continued to participate in the assault … . Accordingly, the evidence did not establish defendant’s accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00) for these crimes. People v Grosso, 2021 NY Slip Op 05640, First Dept 10-14-21

 

,

WHERE (1) THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE TENANT IS OBLIGATED TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE PREMISES, (2) THE TENANT TIMELY SURRENDERS THE PREMISES, AND (3), THE LEASE IS SILENT ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF RENT AFTER THE TERM OF THE LEASE, USE AND OCCUPANCY DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LANDLORD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined “use and occupancy” is not an available measure of damages where the tenant timely surrendered the premises and there was nothing in the lease about additional rent after the term of the lease. The dispute here was whether the lease obligated the tenant to remove property from the premises:

… [U]se and occupancy is not an available measure of damages on plaintiff landlord’s claims. “[T]he measure of damages for a tenant’s breach of a covenant to surrender leased premises in a stipulated condition is limited to the reasonable costs of restoring the premises to that condition” … , absent a stipulation to such damages in the lease itself. Here, nothing in the relevant lease provisions provided for additional rent beyond the term of the lease as part of the damages for restoring the premises to the agreed upon condition. Nor is there a dispute that defendant tenant timely vacated the premises, and surrendered same to plaintiff landlord and that there were no rent arrears outstanding at the time of surrender. Thus, defendants would not be liable for use and occupancy, even if it were ultimately determined that tenant failed to comply with any removal obligations. 44-45 Broadway Leasing Co., LLC v 45th St. Hospitality Partners LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05452, First Dept 10-12-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the hostile work environment claims under the Human Rights Law. The facts were not explained. The conduct occurred when plaintiff was “physically situated outside of New York” and did not have any impact on the “terms, conditions or extent of her employment” within New York:

Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Human Rights Law claims … . Defendants’ alleged conduct occurred while plaintiff was “physically situated outside of New York” … , and did not have “any impact on the terms, conditions or extent of her employment . . . within the boundaries of New York” … . “The fact that the alleged discriminatory acts . . . occurred in New York is insufficient to plead impact in New York” … . Jarusauskaite v Almod Diamonds, Ltd., 2021 NY Slip Op 05460, First Dept 10-12-21

 

A CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ITEMS LAWFULLY IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION WILL NOT LIE UNLESS PLAINTIFF FIRST DEMANDED THEIR RETURN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some of plaintiff’s conversion allegations did not state a cause of action. Apparently plaintiff had created a website for defendant which included photographs, design and coding. Because the website, photographs, design and coding were lawfully in the possession of defendant, and plaintiff did not demand their return, conversion will not lie. Also, a conversion action cannot be based upon damages for breach of contract. However unpaid salary may be the subject of a conversion action:

… [D]efendants had lawful possession of the website that plaintiff had created for defendant The Front Row, as well as the photographs, design, and coding used on the website. Since plaintiff did not allege that she demanded return of those items, she cannot sustain her claim for conversion of the website, the design and coding for the website, and the photographs … . Plaintiff also cannot sustain the conversion claim for a $16,000 fee purportedly owed to her, since “an action for conversion cannot be validly maintained where damages are merely being sought for breach of contract” … .  Nonetheless, plaintiff has standing to assert a claim for conversion of an $8,000 monthly salary payment, because “[c]onversion is concerned with possession, not with title” … . Liegey v Gadeh, 2021 NY Slip Op 05461, First Dept 10-12-21

 

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