You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

EVEN A UBIQUITOUS “DE MINIMUS” VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW IS VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR A PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOP; HERE THE LICENSE PLATE FRAME OBSCURED “GARDEN STATE” ON THE NEW JERSEY LICENSE PLATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pretextual traffic stop was valid and defendant’s suppression motion should not have been granted on that ground. Apparently the license-plate frame obscured New Jersey’s nickname “Garden State” on the plate, which constitutes a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 402(1)(b):

The trial court’s concerns of permitting police officers to engage in pretextual traffic stops based on observations of trivial or technical traffic violations, which may lead to impermissible profiling, are noteworthy and merit consideration. However, once the court found that the officers reasonably believed that a traffic violation had been committed, this provided the required probable cause to stop the car … , regardless of whether the violation could be deemed de minimis, ubiquitous, unintentional, or caused by a third party such as a car dealer … . “Probable cause to believe that the Vehicle and Traffic Law has been violated provides an objectively reasonable basis for the police to stop a vehicle and . . . there is no exception for infractions that are subjectively characterized as ‘de minimis'” … . People v Dula, 2021 NY Slip Op 05465, First Dept 10-12-21

 

, ,

THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE DESIGN) ACTION AROSE FROM THE ROLLOVER OF A VEHICLE MADE BY DEFENDANT FORD; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND PRONE TO ROLLOVERS WAS CONCLUSORY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s expert’s conclusory affidavit alleging defendant’s vehicle was unsafe did not raise a question of fact in this products liability action stemming from the rollover of a vehicle made by defendant (Ford):

The defective design claim should have been dismissed because plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing that the Ford van was not negligently designed. ‘Where a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is usually for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis” whether the product was reasonably safe … . However, an expert cannot raise an issue of fact to defeat a motion for summary judgment when the opinion consists of only bare conclusory allegations of alleged defects or industry wide knowledge … . Here, plaintiffs’ expert’s assertions that the vehicle at issue was unsafe and prone to rollovers was unsupported by any data or calculations concerning the testing he purportedly performed, testing he described in the most conclusory of terms and general of statements … . Richards v Ford Motor Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05469, First Dept 10-12-21

 

DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-TO-CURE PROVISION BEFORE TERMINATING IT; THE REASON FOR TERMINATION, FAULTY WORK, WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE NOTICE-TO-CURE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined defendant breached the contract by failing to comply with the notice-to-cure provision before terminating it. Defendant general contractor (Borough) subcontracted with plaintiff to perform steel work at a residential development project. The subcontract required plaintiff to supply and install steel for excavation support and the frame of the building, as well as provide a full-time safety manager and procure permits for a crane:

… [P]laintiff alleges that defendant failed to comply with the notice-to-cure provision before terminating the contract, gives us the opportunity to address the strict nature of these types of provisions and the very rare instances when they can be ignored. Defendant general contractor terminated the steel work subcontract it had entered into with plaintiff based on what was essentially a claim that plaintiff provided faulty work. … [D]efendant was obligated to give plaintiff the 10-day notice to cure provided in the contract … [.] [F]aulty work does not fall within the very limited and rare circumstances when the provision can be dispensed with, namely, where the other party expressly repudiates the contract or abandons performance or where the breach is impossible to cure. * * *

Borough sent plaintiff a written “notice of termination” stating that the subcontract would be terminated in three days from the date of the letter and that plaintiff was in default by “failing to provide sufficient manpower [] [and] failing to meet the schedule, safety regulations and qualified workmanship for the Project.” The letter further stated that plaintiff “failed to respond or delayed response to requests for crane usage” and “has delayed the performance and completion of the work.” * * *

Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that the plaintiff repudiated or abandoned the contract or could not have commenced and continued correction of the steel frame and other alleged safety violations in the 10-day period following receipt of notice to cure. … [T]he alleged default, faulty steelwork, constitutes nothing more than defective performance, which is “the very situation to which the cure provision was intended to apply” … . East Empire Constr. Inc. v Borough Constr. Group LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05455, First Dept 10-12-2​1

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE OF THE COVID PANDEMIC DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TIME LIMITS FOR RESPONSES TO FOIL REQUESTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the district attorney could not use the statutes-of-limitations tolls imposed by executive order because of the COVID pandemic to delay responses to FOIL requests:

By its terms, EO [Executive Order] 202.8 tolls legal “process[es] or proceeding[s] as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state” … . The FOIL framework and deadlines for agency responses to requests are not “prescribed by the procedural laws,” such as the CPLR and CPL. In the context of FOIL requests, legal “proceedings” ensue only when parties are unable to agree on a response to a request, and resort to the courts via CPLR article 78 proceedings. The conduct of article 78 proceedings are “prescribed by the procedural laws” of the CPLR. FOIL requests and responses are not so prescribed … .

Hence, respondents’ position that EO 202.8 tolls their obligation to respond to FOIL requests, is erroneous. Matter of Oustatcher v Clark, 2021 NY Slip Op 05295, First Dept 10-5-21

 

PLAINTIFF’S LADDER SHIFTED AS HE USED IT TO THROW TRASH INTO A DUMPSTER; THE ALLEGATION HE WAS TOLD NOT TO USE THAT DUMPSTER DID NOT RAISE A SOLE-PROXIMATE-CAUSE OR RECALCITRANT-EMPLOYEE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was using a closed A-frame ladder propped up against a dumpster as threw debris into it when the ladder shifted and he fell. The defendants’ argument that plaintiff was told not to use that dumpster did not raise a sole-proximate-cause or a recalcitrant-employee defense:

“[I]f a statutory violation is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it” … . A worker’s injury in an area of the work site where the worker was not supposed to be amounts to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … .

To the extent that defendants argue that plaintiff was recalcitrant in ignoring defendants’ alleged instructions not to use the dumpster, this is insufficient to raise an issue of fact. The recalcitrant worker defense “requires a showing that the injured worker refused to use the safety devises that were provided by the owner or employer. It has no application where, as here, no adequate safety devices were provided” … . An employer’s instructions “to avoid an unsafe practice is not a sufficient substitute for providing a worker with a safety device to allow him to complete his work safely” … . Plaku v 1622 Van Buren LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05311, First Dept 10-5-21​

 

,

THE PEOPLE PROPERLY RELIED ON HEARSAY TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE TO CALL THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY INTO QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department explained the People’s burden of proof when relying on hearsay evidence at a suppression hearing. Here the transit officers who witnessed defendant commit “farebeating” (providing probable cause) were not called to testify. The hearsay was deemed admissible under Aguilar-Spinelli and the defendant did not call the accuracy or reliability of the hearsay into question by cross-examination or the presentation of evidence:

Defendant’s main argument on appeal is that the People failed to meet their burden of coming forward with evidence demonstrating probable cause with respect to the underlying theft of services arrest — which created the circumstances for the testifying officer’s discovery of defendant — because they did not present any testimony from the Transit Bureau officers who had firsthand knowledge of the farebeating offense.  …

Probable cause may properly be established based on hearsay testimony … , such as the officer’s testimony about what he was told by the transit officers, so long as, under the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the People establish that there was “some basis” of knowledge for the underlying statement and that it was “reliable”… . The “some basis” requirement is satisfied where, as here, the information is based on personal knowledge … .

Although the People will fail to meet their burden at a suppression hearing where they rely exclusively on hearsay evidence and “the defense challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, whether by cross-examining the People’s witness or putting on a defense case” … , that is not the situation here, because defendant did not present any evidence, identify anything in the People’s case, or elicit any statements on cross-examination that undercut the veracity of the transit officers’ account of a farebeating, as relayed by the testifying officer … . The unsupported assertion in defendant’s moving papers that he was seized without reason was not sufficient to necessitate calling the transit officers as witnesses. People v Gerard, 2021 NY Slip Op 05089, First Dept 9-28-21

 

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WHO RECOVERED STOLEN PROPERTY FROM HIM WAS LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE POLICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether the store security guard who detained him was licensed to exercise police powers or was acting as an agent of the police. Although the defendant had already pled guilty and was sentenced, the information available to the defendant did not identify the person who detained him and, therefore, defendant could hot have subpoenaed employment records to ascertain the security guard’s employment status:

Under People v Mendoza (82 NY2d 415, 425, 433—434 [1993]), defendant is entitled to a hearing on the purely factual issue of whether or not the security guard involved in his detention was licensed to exercise police powers, or acting as an agent of the police. * * *

… [T]he felony complaint provided no information regarding defendant’s arrest, and the VDF simply indicated that the arrest took place on “May 27, 2027,” at “9:04 PM,” “Inside Bergdorf Goodman at 754 Fifth Avenue.” The individual who allegedly recovered the stolen material from defendant’s handbag was neither identified by name nor as an employee of Bergdorf.

This information could not have helped defendant further investigate whether the security guard was a private or state actor status. People v Sneed, 2021 NY Slip Op 05095, First Dept 9-28-21

 

, , , ,

THE STIPULATION OF DIVORCE DIVESTED THE HUSBAND OF HIS RIGHTS IN THE MARITAL PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE HUSBAND’S JUDGMENT CREDITOR COULD NOT REACH THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE HUSBAND’S NAME REMAINED ON THE DEED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation of divorce awarding the marital property to the wife, Tiozzo, controlled such that the property could not be reached by the husband’s, Dangin’s, judgment creditor, Lenz. Lenz unsuccessfully argued the property was fair game because Dangin’s name remained on the deed:

The stipulation of divorce thus divested Dangin of his rights in the subject property. Under CPLR article 52 a judgment creditor may only seek to enforce its money judgment against a judgment debtor’s property. “Property” under CPLR 5201(b), whether realty or personalty, is defined broadly as an interest that is present or future, vested or contingent … . However, the determining factor as to whether a judgment debtor’s interest can constitute property vulnerable to a judgment creditor is whether it “could be assigned or transferred” (CPLR 5201[b]). In the stipulation of divorce Dangin gave up any right to assign or transfer to a third party an interest in the subject property. The subject property is therefore beyon.d the reach of Lenz … . Tiozzo v Dangin, 2021 NY Slip Op 04739, First Dept 8-19-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT, PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 77, PROPERLY RESOLVED THE DISTRIBUTION OF A $4.5 BILLION GLOBAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT BY JP MORGAN CHASE IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES-RELATED ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined Supreme Court properly resolved the distribution pursuant to CPLR article 77 of a $4.5 billion global settlement payment by JPMorgan Chase to investors to be made by residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts. The opinion is detailed, fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here.  The rulings are specific to provisions included in or absent from the relevant pooling and servicing agreements (PSA’s). Matter of Wells Fargo Bank v Aegon USA Inv. Mgt., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04740, First Dept 8-19-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNOPPOSED; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO AN ADJOURNED DATE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED ON THE MERITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the building owner’s (Findlay’s) motion for summary judgment in this wet-floor slip and fall case should not have been granted. Supreme Court had treated the motion as unopposed. However, plaintiff’s counsel was under the impression the parties had stipulated to an adjourned date. Leave to appeal was granted in the interest of justice. On the merits, plaintiff raised a question of fact about the adequacy of the “wet floor” warning:

[Supreme Court’s] order was not made upon notice and is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a]). However, this Court is authorized to deem a notice of appeal a request for leave to appeal and to grant such leave for a determination on the merits in the interest of justice (CPLR 5701[c] …). Given the facts of this case, this Court grants plaintiff leave to appeal in the interest of justice. Relying on CPLR 2214 and 2004, the motion court dismissed the complaint because plaintiff’s counsel did not offer a valid explanation for his late filing. However, counsel filed his opposition pursuant to what he thought was a valid stipulation.  …

Given the T-shaped nature of the hallway in this case, there are issues of fact as to whether the first warning sign was adequate, especially since the floor in that area was dry. Indeed, “[t]he mere placement of a “wet floor warning sign does not automatically absolve a defendant of negligence” … . We also note that this housing development housed primarily elderly and handicapped individuals. Zubillaga v Findlay Teller Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04687, First Dept 8-12-21

 

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