You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

A SUPPRESSION MOTION CANNOT BE DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, holding the appeal in abeyance, noted that a suppression motion may not be denied on a ground not raised by the People:

The motion to suppress should not have been denied on a ground not raised by the People. It is unclear to what extent the suppression court considered and credited the People’s argument regarding probable cause or whether the search was outside of the Fourth Amendment’s purview under the circumstances. Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for determination, based on the hearing minutes, of the issues raised at the hearing, but not decided … . People v Hatchett, 2021 NY Slip Op 04282, First Dept 7-8-21

 

, ,

A SETTLEMENT EMAIL WILL BE DEEMED SIGNED BY THE SENDING ATTORNEY WITHOUT RETYPING THE ATTORNEY’S NAME IN THE EMAIL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, overruling precedent, determined it is no longer necessary for an attorney to retype his or her name in an email stipulation of settlement. As long as  the attorney’s name appears in the “prepopulated” area of the email it will be deemed to have been signed by the attorney:

We now hold that this distinction between prepopulated and retyped signatures in emails reflects a needless formality that does not reflect how law is commonly practiced today. It is not the signoff that indicates whether the parties intended to reach a settlement via email, but rather the fact that the email was sent. Since 1999, New York State has joined other states in allowing, in most contexts, parties to accept electronic signatures in place of “wet ink” signatures. Section 304(2) of New York’s Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA) provides: “unless specifically provided otherwise by law, an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand. The use of an electronic signature shall have the same validity and effect as the use of a signature affixed by hand.” Moreover, the statutory definition of what constitutes an “electronic signature” is extremely broad under the ESRA, and includes any “electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record” (State Technology Law § 302[a]). We find that if an attorney hits “send” with the intent of relaying a settlement offer or acceptance, and their email account is identified in some way as their own, then it is unnecessary for them to type their own signature. Matter of Philadelphia Ins. Indem. Co. v Kendall, 2021 NY Slip Op 04284, First Dept 7-8-21

 

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HIS FOREMAN WHEN INJURED BY AN IMPROPERLY HOISTED LOAD, HE COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) action could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries because he was following the directions of his foreman when struck by an improperly hoisted load:

Plaintiff Samuel Hayek demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, where the undisputed evidence showed that he was injured when struck by an improperly hoisted or inadequately secured load of L-shaped steel rebar weighing between 2000 and 3000 pounds, while doing construction work at defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Eastside Access project … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue as to the statutory violation and whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injury. Given the undisputed evidence that plaintiff was following the directions of his foreman at the time of his injury, plaintiff cannot be the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Hayek v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 04103, First Dept 6-29-21

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTION’S REASONS FOR EXCLUDING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR WERE PRETEXTUAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the two explanations offered by the prosecution for excluding an African-American prospective juror were pretextual and should not have been accepted by the court:

On its face, the subject explanation, that an older gentleman with no children living with roommates would not able to appreciate a domestic violence situation, was not a valid trial-related concern at all. “To recognize the proffered explanation as valid and legitimate would, in our view, emasculate the constitutional protection recognized in Batson . . . and we refuse to do so” … . In fact, the prosecutor does not cite to a single case where this Court or any other court has found such a dubious explanation as a valid-race neutral reason. * * *

… [T]he second explanation was equally pretextual. In essence, the prosecution explained that it “selected people who had higher level jobs with all other things being equal,” as well as “[p]eople who indicated that they read.” According to the prosecutor, those types of jurors had more capacity to follow the instructions and understand the law. The prosecutor’s explanation is essentially an attempt to convince this Court with the preposterous proposition that only jurors with “higher level jobs” can effectively consider all the evidence in this case. While a juror’s employment status might be an appropriate race-neutral reason for exclusion, it should be related to the facts of the case … . However, if the employment of the potential juror has no connection with the specific facts of the case then an exclusion of such a juror could constitute discrimination … .

… [T]he prosecutor did not relate his concerns about the prospective juror’s employment to the factual circumstances of the case. People v Murray, 2021 NY Slip Op 04108, First Dept 6-29-21

 

,

THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC DID NOT ENTITLE PLAINTIFF COMMERCIAL TENANT TO RENT ABATEMENT UNDER THE LEASE OR RESCISSION BASED UPON FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE OR IMPOSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the COVID-19 pandemic did not entitle plaintiff to rent abatement under the lease and did support rescission of the lease based upon frustration of purpose or impossibility:

… [P]laintiff is not entitled to a rent abatement under the lease “due to loss of use of all or a portion of the Demised Premises due to [a] Casualty[.]” That portion of the lease refers to singular incidents causing physical damage to the premises and does not contemplate loss of use due to a pandemic or resulting government lockdown … . …

The doctrine of frustration of purpose does not apply as a matter of law where, as here, the tenant was not “completely deprived of the benefit of its bargain” (… 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Times Sq. Photo Inc., 194 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2021] [finding that reduced revenues did not frustrate the purpose of the lease]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion that Executive Order 202.8 [re: COVID-related suspension of laws] rendered it objectively impossible to perform its operations as a retail store as required by the lease is unavailing as defendant correctly points out that by the time plaintiff filed its complaint in July 2020, this was no longer the case … . Gap, Inc. v 170 Broadway Retail Owner, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04115, First Dept 6-29-21

 

, , ,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION (TOP) WHICH BARRED HER FROM HER OWN APARTMENT WHERE HER CHILDREN LIVED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, reversing Criminal Court, determined the mandamus action against  a Criminal Court judge seeking a hearing on a temporary order of protection (TOP) should have been granted. The First Department found that the matter qualified as an exception to the mootness doctrine and heard the appeal despite the dismissal of the underlying criminal action. Petitioner was charged with assaulting a man with whom she lived in her apartment. The TOP barred her from her own apartment where her children resided:

We find that the Criminal Court’s initial failure to hold an evidentiary hearing in accordance with petitioner’s due process rights after being informed that petitioner might suffer the deprivation of a significant liberty or property interest upon issuance of the TOP falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine: “(1)[there is] a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) [it involves] a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) [there is] a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . Matter of Crawford v Ally, 2021 NY Slip Op 04082, First Dept 6-24-21

 

,

CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the NYC Board of Education was required to provide random COVID-19 testing to city-resident students in charter schools, but not to charter-school staff or to nonparty charter schools:

… Supreme Court erred in directing the City to provide Covid testing not only to children but also to charter school staff, and charter schools which are not parties to this proceeding. Section 912 by its terms directs the school district to provide covered services to “resident children who attend” nonpublic schools, to the same extent such services are provided to children attending public schools (Education Law § 912). The statute does not require that such services be provided to staff or anyone else other than resident children. Accordingly, we modify the judgment, to limit relief to children attending petitioners’ charter schools, and not to children attending nonparty charter schools, nor to staff at any school. Matter of King v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 04083, First Dept 6-24-21

 

, ,

THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the finding respondent committed the family offense of harassment by sending email about petitioner’s personal matters to 53 people. Although the harassment prohibitions in the order of protection did not violate the Firs Amendment, the provision in the order of protection which prohibited respondent from discussing the petitioner or the proceedings was struck as unnecessary:

Respondent contends that the provision of the order prohibiting him from discussing petitioner or the case with anyone familiar with petitioner violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be sure, respondent’s repeatedly sending petitioner emails articulating his unwanted opinions about her, her mother and their family dynamic or making petitioner aware of the emails he sent to several third parties broadcasting those opinions by blind-copying her on those messages is not protected by the First Amendment, because those repeated and unwanted communications serve no legitimate purpose … . However, because the harassment is adequately addressed by the provision that respondent stay away from petitioner and not contact her, we delete the prohibition against his discussing petitioner or the proceeding … . Matter of Sophia M. v James M., 2021 NY Slip Op 03992, First Dept 6-22-21

 

, ,

THE LANDLORD AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN UNAUTHORIZED SYSTEM TO DELIVER GAS TO APPARTMENTS WERE PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AFTER A GAS EXPLOSION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the manslaughter convictions of the landlord (Hrynenko) and general contractor (Kukic) stemming from a gas explosion which killed two and injured 13. The defendants were responsible for installing an unauthorized system for delivering gas to apartments in the building. The evidence was deemed legally sufficient and the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he evidence was legally sufficient to prove that defendants recklessly caused the victims’ deaths when they deliberately circumvented safety regulations to create and operate the unauthorized system that diverted natural gas from the building at 119 Second Avenue to the apartments in the building at 121 Second Avenue. Contrary to defendants’ primary argument, the explosion was a foreseeable result of their actions. There was ample evidence that defendants, who both had ample experience with buildings and the relevant DOB [Department of Buildings] and Con Ed regulations, understood the risk that death would occur when they proceeded with building and operating the unauthorized gas delivery system … . However, Hrynenko needed a gas delivery system to enable her to immediately begin collecting rent for the apartments at 121, so she chose not to wait for Con Ed’s permitting and inspection process to be completed for the authorized system and instead had Kukic build an unauthorized and dangerous makeshift system, using unlicensed plumbers, which they hid from Con Ed. The record shows that defendants both had active roles throughout the planning, building and operation of the system. People v Kukic, 2021 NY Slip Op 03996, First Dept 6-22-21

 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGING FORCIBLE TOUCHING DID NOT ALLEGE THE APPLICATION OF PRESSURE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE TOUCHING RENDERING THE COMPLAINT LEGALLY INSFUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the defendant’s forcible touching conviction, determined the complaint was legally insufficient because it did not allege the application of pressure as an element of the touching:

The complaint was legally insufficient to support the forcible touching charge; therefore, with respect to that charge only, the prosecutor’s information was jurisdictionally defective … . The actus reus of forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52) is “any bodily contact involving the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts” … . Here, the complaint alleged that defendant touched the victim’s thighs and genitals by reaching under her skirt, but it failed to allege any facts consistent with the application of pressure … . People v Zaragoza, 2021 NY Slip Op 03915, First Dept 6-17-21

 

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