You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

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

 

,

WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT DUPLICATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court noted that where there is a dispute about the existence of an enforceable contract, a cause of actiono for unjust enrichment is not duplicative:

With respect to the unjust enrichment … [t]hese claims should not have been dismissed as duplicative because “where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or the application of a contract in the dispute in issue, a plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quasi contract as well as breach of contract, and will not be required to elect his or her remedies” … . CIP GP 2018, LLC v Koplewicz, 2021 NY Slip Op 03370, First Dept 5-27-21

 

,

INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the property owner could be liable for injury to a child, H.M. caused by hot water in the shower. The defendant placement service (Leake) had placed H,M. in the foster care of defendant Butler who lived in a home owned by Alicea. Butler had turned on the shower and was picking up H.M.’s clothes when H.M. climbed into the tub. There was a question of fact whether the property owner, Alicea, was liable because of conflicting expert evidence about the danger posed by the temperature of the water. However, the incident was not foreseeable from the perspective of the placement agency (Leake). Therefore, Leake’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

… [T]here is an issue of fact as to whether [Alicea] created the dangerous hot water temperature when he replaced the home’s hot water heater prior to the accident. …

Leake demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the negligent supervision claim against it because it established that it did not have “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury,” and “[t]he scalding hot bath water was an intervening act or event that is divorced from and not the foreseeable risk associated with. . .defendant’s alleged negligence” … . The excessively hot water was not the foreseeable risk associated with Leake’s alleged negligence in placing more than five children in the home, and the momentary inattention of Butler was not an act that should have been foreseeable by Leake in the exercise of reasonable care … . H.M. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 03376, First Dept 5-27-21

 

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined defendant’s pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because was told he could be sentenced to 45 years after trial when the sentence would have been capped at 20 years:

Defendant was told that he faced the possibility of serving three 15-year sentences, to run consecutively, if he chose to proceed to trial, when at most he was facing 20 years because of the statutory cap … . Thus, he was weighing a 9-year plea offer against what he was told was a maximum of 45 years’ imprisonment. Because defendant was not told about the capping statute, he did not have a “full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequences” … .

This 25-year disparity between the true legal sentence and the sentence defendant was told he could receive was so significant alone as to render his plea involuntary … . As defendant explained in his affidavit, submitted in support of his CPL 440.10 motion, the prospect of spending 45 years in prison—and dying there—factored into the 42-year-old’s calculation of the relative pros and cons of accepting the plea … . People v Buchanan, 2021 NY Slip Op 03386, First Dept 5-27-21

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS LEARNED OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FRAUD MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS SIX YEARS BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the fraud, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty causes of action were timely brought against defendant attorney. Defendant attorney represented a party who was found to have defrauded plaintiffs in an arbitration resulting in a $56,4 million judgment. Plaintiffs alleged the attorney’s participation in the fraud was not discovered until the arbitration proceedings:

The limitations period for fraud is the greater of six years from the date of the fraud or two years from the time when, with reasonable diligence, the plaintiff could have uncovered the fraud (CPLR 213[8] … ). In order to prevail, the defendant must show that there is no issue of fact under either prong. Here, defendant failed to show dispositively that plaintiffs were in possession of facts that would have triggered inquiry notice under CPLR 213(8) more than two years before the action was commenced … . …

Nor are plaintiff’s unjust enrichment or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims time-barred. Both claims are subject to the six-year statute of limitations because they are based on allegations of actual fraud (CPLR 213[8] …). Sabourin v Chodos, 2021 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 5-27-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR CONDITIONED HIS SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AT WORK ON HER COMPLIANCE WITH HIS DEMANDS FOR SEX SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES RE: DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the punitive damages request in this employment discrimination action should not have been dismissed:

The request for punitive damages should be reinstated. [defendant] Ravich’s conduct in conditioning his support of plaintiff at work on her compliance with his demands for sex, if proven, would be sufficient to demonstrate discrimination “with willful or wanton negligence, or recklessness, or a conscious disregard of the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard” … . Punitive damages could also be awarded against the TCW defendants if they are found vicariously liable for this conduct, although they would be entitled to mitigate such damages with proof of policies established to deter discrimination … . Tirschwell v TCW Group Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03397, First Dept 5-27-21

 

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