You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , , , ,

THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS VALID EVEN IF BASED ON AN ERROR OF LAW OR FACT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; CPLR 5225 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the arbitrator’s award was valid even if an error of law or fact was made; (2) the failure to provide a letter of engagement did not preclude the petitioner-attorney’s action for breach of contract; (3) petitioner was not required to commence a special proceeding to enforce the judgment; (4) the motions to enforce the judgement do not violate the Commercial Division rules:

… [E]ven if the arbitrator had made an error of law or fact in concluding that respondents had breached the retainer agreements, this alone would not justify vacating the award … . …

… [T]he court improperly denied the motions [to enforce the judgment] based upon its finding that petitioner had failed to commence a separate special proceeding to enforce the judgment. The language of CPLR 5225 clarifies that the court had jurisdiction to resolve the turnover motion. While CPLR 5225(a) provides that a judgment creditor seeking turnover of money or personal property “in possession or custody” of the judgment debtor does so “[u]pon motion of the judgment creditor,” CPLR 5225(b) provides that a judgment creditor seeking turnover of money or personal property in a third party’s possession or custody does so “[u]pon a special proceeding commenced by the judgment creditor” … Given that petitioner brought the motions against the judgment debtor as opposed to a third party, it was not required to commence a separate proceeding. Matter of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v World Class Capital Group, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03252, First Dept 5-20-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MISSED A STATUS CONFERENCE; THE SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE; PLAINTIFF CORRECTLY MOVED TO VACATE THE ORDER AND APPEALED THE DENIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint because plaintiff missed a status conference. The First Department noted that the sua sponte dismissal order was not appealable as of right. Therefore plaintiff correcting moved to vacate the order and then appealed the denial of that order:

Contrary to defendant Hudson’s argument, the status conference order sua sponte dismissing the complaint was not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a][2] …). Plaintiff followed proper procedure by “apply[ing] to vacate the order and then appeal[ing] from the denial of that motion so that a suitable record [could] be made and counsel afforded the opportunity to be heard on the issues” … .

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal without giving plaintiff notice that such a sanction might be imminent … . Further, the sanction of dismissal was not warranted, and would not have been warranted even upon a motion on notice, based on plaintiff’s noncompliance with one order … . MJC Elec., Inc v Hudson Meridian Constr. Group, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03258, First Dept 5-20-21

 

,

THE RECORDING AND DISCLOSURE OF INMATE PHONE CALLS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INMATES’ RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reiterated that the recording and disclosure of inmate phone calls do not violate the inmate’s constitutional right to equal protection:

… [O]nce an inmate implicitly consents to the recording of his calls, the inmate retains no reasonable expectation of privacy that would prevent the correctional facility from disclosing the recording. “[W]here detainees are aware that their phone calls are being monitored and recorded all reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of those phone calls is lost, and there is no legitimate reason to think that the recordings, like any other evidence lawfully discovered, would not be admissible” (People v Diaz, 33 NY3d 92, 100 [2019] …). Indeed, at the heart of defendant’s argument is the contradictory proposition that the warrant requirement should be applied to a statement in which he has no privacy interest at all.

The principle stated in Diaz applies to any person, incarcerated or not, who waives his or her privacy interest in a conversation, whether by consenting to have it recorded or otherwise. To this extent, defendant was similarly situated to defendants awaiting trial while at liberty. While defendant was treated disparately from such defendants in that he was required to either consent to recording or go without telephone use, this differential treatment did not run afoul of the equal protection clause. Furthermore, defendant fails to show that the government action at issue burdens a fundamental right … . People v Jennings, 2021 NY Slip Op 03262, First Dept 5-20-21

, ,

MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC PARK, DESPITE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING BICYCLE-RIDING; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HIRED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD WHO STRUCK INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CHILD’S FATHER (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CARE-GIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN SUPERVISING THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined: (1) the municipal defendants were not liable for injuries to infant plaintiff caused when infant plaintiff was struck by another child (defendant Tully’s son) riding a bicycle in a municipal park where bicycle-riding was prohibited; (2) there was a question of fact whether defendant Bhawanie, who was employed by defendant Tully to care for Tully’s son, was defendant Tully’s employee or an independent contractor; (3) there were questions of fact whether Bhawanie was negligent:

… “[B]icycle riding in a playground . . . constitutes neither an ultrahazardous nor a criminal activity” … . … [T]he municipal defendants are not accountable to the infant plaintiff for their alleged failure to enforce their regulations prohibiting bicycle riding in the playground, since the promulgation and enforcement of such regulations do not constitute the assumption of a special relationship with the infant plaintiff such that a special duty was owed to him … . …

… [T]he evidence demonstrated that Bhawanie had worked for Tully and his wife continuously from 2007 through 2016, Tully and his wife dictated Bhawanie’s work schedule, and Bhawanie had to receive permission from Tully and his wife before engaging in certain activities with their children. Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists on the issue of whether Bhawanie was an employee of Tully, such that vicarious liability may be imposed, or whether she was an independent contractor. …

“While a person caring for entrusted children is not cast in the role of an insurer, such an individual is obliged to provide adequate supervision and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately resulting from the negligent failure to do so” … . C.B. v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2021 NY Slip Op 03158, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK WHEN HE LIFTED A HEAVY PIECE OF LUMBER TO ALLOW THE BLADES OF A FORKLIFT TO MOVE UNDER THE LUMBER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WAS APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been granted (but did not explain why). Plaintiff injured his back when he lifted a heavy object to allow the blades of a forklift to be moved under it:

There are issues of fact as to “whether plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … .

It appears that plaintiff was placed in a position that required him to lift an extremely heavy piece of lumber without any safety devices such as those listed in Labor Law § 240(1) in order to get the assistance of a forklift. We note, in this regard, that any action on plaintiff’s part in lifting the beam goes to the issue of comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because the statute imposes absolute liability once a violation is shown … . Moreover, plaintiff was under no duty to demand an alternate safety device on his own because “[t]o place that burden on employees would effectively eviscerate the protections that the legislature put in place” … . “Indeed, workers would be placed in a nearly impossible position if they were required to demand adequate safety devices from their employers or the owners of buildings on which they work” … . Greene v Raynors Lane Prop. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03114, First Dept 5-13-21

 

,

THE PEOPLE FAILED TO TIMELY REDUCE THE BOND OBLIGATION TO A JUDGMENT, THEREFORE THE SURETY’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT FORFEITING THE $100,000 BAIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the surety’s motion to vacate a judgment forfeiting $100,000 bail should have been granted. Although the surety’s (Empire’s) motion was untimely, the People had failed to timely reduce the bond obligation to a judgment. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

In this special proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 by a surety of a defendant in a criminal case, the dispositive question is whether a surety is procedurally precluded from moving to vacate a judgment of bail forfeiture as untimely made. The People argue that the application is precluded because the surety did not move within the one-year time limit applicable to a motion for remission of the forfeiture, which, as set forth in CPL 540.30(2), “must be made within one year after the forfeiture of bail is declared.” We answer the question in the negative because the People must first comply with the statutory mandate of CPL 540.10(2) before they can raise the one-year statute of limitations of CPL 540.30(2). The People did not comply with CPLR 540.10(2), which requires the People to reduce a bond obligation to a judgment within 120 days after the forfeiture is declared by the court. People v Empire Bonding & Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 03120, First Dept 5-13-21

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A 16-YEAR-OLD SOFTBALL PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STEPPING IN A HOLE ON THE FIELD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a 16-year-old softball player assumed the risk of stepping into a hole on the softball field:

Plaintiff, an experienced 16-year-old softball player was playing softball on an outdoor artificial turf field owned by defendant City of New York (the City). Plaintiff maintained that she sustained injures to her left knee when she stepped into a hole on the turf that had been placed over existing turf. The City contends that the hole was an open and obvious condition and that plaintiff assume the risk of injury. We disagree. The photographs in the record appear to depict a tear or seam in the turf that may have caused a concealed depression relative to the surrounding playing surface.

Accordingly, issues of fact exist whether the City was negligent in maintaining the field in a reasonably safe condition. Although a participant in an athletic activity is deemed to have assumed “those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation,” there remain issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries resulted from concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . A.S. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 02975, First Dept 5-11-21

 

,

THE NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) PROPERLY HELD THE APARTMENT WAS RENT-STABILIZED, BUT DID NOT PROPERLY CALCULATE THE RENT OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) properly found the apartment in question was rent-stabilized, but used the wrong formula to calculate the rent overcharge. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Supreme Court correctly denied AEJ’s petition insofar as it seeks reversal of DHCR’s determination that the apartment is rent-stabilized. DHCR’s examination of the apartment’s rental history to determine its regulated status had a rational basis … . DHCR erred, however, in establishing the base date rent by using the last registered rent from 1990 and then adding subsequent rent-stabilized rent increases to bring it up to date as of March 2010. The rent history of the apartment beyond the four year look back should not have been examined to determine the base rent for overcharge purposes … . Rather the base date rent is what [the tenant] actually paid four years prior to the date when [the landlord] filed its request for administrative determination (AD request) with DHCR. Matter of AEJ 534 E. 88th, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2021 NY Slip Op 02977, First Dept 5-11-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRONICALLY FILING A VIDEO; THEREFORE THE VIDEO WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the video evidence relied upon by defendants’ expert in this elevator-malfunction personal-injury case was not properly electronically filed and therefore was unavailable for review. Because of the unavailability of the evidence defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied:

Defendants failed to establish prima facie that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the injuries she sustained when the manual freight elevator that she was operating suddenly stopped moving … . Defendants submitted an affidavit by an expert professional engineer who opined — based on his review of the surveillance footage of plaintiff’s accident and still images purportedly extracted therefrom — that plaintiff failed to fully close the elevator car’s scissor gate, which then opened while the elevator car was in flight, triggering the elevator’s sudden stop. However, they failed to submit the video footage on which their expert relied. Instead, in this electronically filed case, defendants submitted a sheet of paper that read, “Copy of the video to be provided upon the Court’s request.” The New York County e-filing protocol required parties who wished to submit exhibits “that cannot practically be e-filed,” such as videos, to file NYSCEF Form EF 21 and consult with the County Clerk about how best to submit such exhibits … . Because defendants failed to comply with these procedures, the video never became part of the record and thus cannot be reviewed by this Court.

Absent the video, the record evidence does not establish that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries. Amezquita v RCPI Landmark Props., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02979, First Dept 5-11-21

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT INCLUDED OFFENSES FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT HELD FOR GRAND JURY ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective because it included offenses for which defendant was not held for grand jury action:

The initial felony complaint charged defendant with two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and one count each of assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree. Defendant subsequently agreed to waive prosecution by indictment and plead guilty to one count of aggravated criminal contempt, an offense greater than that charged in the original felony complaint. Because the only offense contained in the superior court information was not an offense for which defendant was held for grand jury action, or a lesser included offense, the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective … .

The fact that the felony complaint was amended to include a charge for aggravated criminal contempt does not require a different result. The superior court information is still defective because it included higher offenses for which defendant was not held for grand jury action (see CPL 195.20). People v Angel, 2021 NY Slip Op 03001, First Dept 5-11-21

 

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