You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

THE GUARANTEES QUALIFED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY AND SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; ONLY PURELY LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in lieu of complaint based upon guarantees which met the definition of instruments for the payment of money only. The court noted that two arguments raised for the first time on appeal (documents not qualified as business records and failure to include a payment schedule) could not be considered because they were not purely legal arguments. A third argument, which was purely legal, was considered:

Defendants’ contention that the guaranties do not qualify as instruments for the payment of money only, as required by CPLR 3213, because they guarantee performance as well as payment and reference must be made to documents outside the guaranties to determine if the debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) conditions have been met, is unavailing. Although this argument was raised for the first time on appeal, since these are “legal issues appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided” if they had been raised earlier, we will address the argument … .

The guaranty at issue in 27 West 72nd St. qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only because it guarantees only payment and not performance. … [T]he … operative provision of the guaranty says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment of the Guaranteed Obligations.”

The guaranty at issue in 31 East 28th St. also qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only. Although it says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of the Guaranteed Obligations as and when due and payable,” the mere addition of the words “and performance” does not necessarily remove the guaranty from the category of instruments for the payment of money only, particularly when the sentence ends with “as and when due and payable.”  27 W. 72nd St. Note Buyer LLC v Terzi, 2021 NY Slip Op 03364, First Dept 5-27-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CASE COULD BE PRESENTED WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT UNAVAILABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE A COLLEAGUE WAS IN COURT REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s speedy trial motion should have been granted. The court noted the issue is the prosecution’s readiness for trial, not whether defense counsel is available:

The court erred, firstly, in excluding 93 days of pre-readiness delay in which the prosecution failed to present its case to the grand jury. “[T]he obligation to obtain a proper accusatory instrument is the prosecutor’s alone” … , making “the period prior to the People’s obtaining an indictment [] chargeable to them, absent the applicability of some exclusion” … . …

… [T]he prosecutor did not and could not establish its inability to proceed with the case since the complainant was not necessary to present its case to the grand jury. The charges against defendant were for leaving the scene of the accident without reporting it. The complainant remembered nothing of the accident, let alone defendant’s actions in its aftermath, professing to this lack of memory on the very day of the accident. …

The court also erred in excluding 83 days of post-readiness delay that was due to the prosecutor’s improper declaration that its readiness was “moot” because lead defense counsel was on trial. While acknowledging that a colleague of defense counsel was present, the court nonetheless erroneously concluded that “the People’s state of readiness is irrelevant where counsel is unavailable,” misconstruing the law as to what constitutes “unavailability.” …

Because a colleague of defense counsel stood up on the case on July 8, 2015, as the court itself acknowledged, defendant was not without representation on the basis that “counsel was unavailable.” People v Alvarez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03286, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the waiver of defendant’s right to counsel was invalid and the evidence of criminal mischief and auto stripping was legally insufficient, and the convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, because the record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … . “The critical consideration is defendant’s knowledge at the point in time when he first waived his right to counsel”; the court’s subsequent warnings about sentencing “were incapable of retrospectively ‘curing’ the . . . court’s error” … . Moreover, the court “improperly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se without first conducting a searching inquiry regarding defendant’s mental capacity to waive counsel” … , in light of his history of mental illness, as well as his statement, in response to the court’s reference to the “tremendous pitfalls of representing yourself,” that “[n]one of that has been explained,” even after the court had warned him of a number of such risks.

Defendant’s conviction of third-degree criminal mischief as to one of the vehicles he damaged (count four), and his conviction of first-degree auto stripping, were unsupported by legally sufficient evidence (a claim we review in the interest of justice), and were also against the weight of the evidence … . The People failed to establish that particular charge of criminal mischief because the evidence did not show that “the reasonable cost of repairing the damaged property” … . Such costs “may not be established by hearsay”… . The People relied on a nonexpert witness who was not the owner of the vehicle and did not pay for the repairs, but testified that he looked at a receipt and that the repair costs were $600 … , and the People do not invoke any exception to the hearsay rule. In the absence of admissible evidence as to the repair costs for that vehicle, the People also failed to establish that the aggregate damage to all the vehicles exceeded $3,000, the minimum value for first-degree auto stripping … . People v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03288, First Dept 5-25-21

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED INFLATION OF THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS PURCHASED BY PLAINTIFF; AND THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL WARRANTIES WHICH DID NOT DUPLICATE THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint adequately alleged fraud (inflating the value of defendants’ business which was purchased by plaintiff) and breach of contract:

… [T]he key … element of a claim for fraudulent concealment — duty to disclose — is met here, given the hidden nature of the fraud, which turned on falsified records and bribed auditors, and the practical impossibility of discovering the fraud through ordinary diligence … .

Defendants’ alleged deception also breached numerous warranties set forth in the governing stock purchase agreement, including that … financial statements were materially complete and correct, that its [earning] projections were reasonable and made in good faith, that it had no material undisclosed liabilities, and that it conducted its business in compliance with applicable law. Nevertheless, “[a] warranty is not a promise of performance, but a statement of present fact. Accordingly, a fraud claim can be based on a breach of contractual warranties notwithstanding the existence of a breach of contract claim” … . Thus, the fraud claim does not duplicate the contract claim … . VXI Lux Holdco, S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03294, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTARY STAMP WAS MISSING FROM THE SCANNED MORTGAGE IN THE NYC REGISTER, PLAINTIFF BANK DEMONSTRATED THE MORTGAGE WAS PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGED WHEN DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE MORTGAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive concurrence, determined defendant bank demonstrated the mortgage was properly recorded in the NYC Register and, therefore, plaintiff’s interest the property was subordinate to defendant’s mortgage:

The parties do not dispute that the mortgage, as reflected in the records of the Office of the New York City Register, did not bear a notary stamp or any indication that the mortgage was properly acknowledged as required by Real Property Law §§ 291, 298, 309-a(1), and 333(2). However, the bank proffered evidence establishing that the mortgage was properly acknowledged when submitted for recording. This evidence included the original inked mortgage containing the notary public’s information; an affidavit from the notary who affixed her notary stamp at the time; an affidavit from the title company that submitted the mortgage for recording, and an expert affidavit and report by a forensic document examiner in which he concluded that the Register’s scanner could have caused the notary stamp to disappear from the imaged mortgage. Plaintiff has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the acknowledgment was defective … . Thus, the bank demonstrated that the mortgage was “entitled to be recorded . . . and is considered recorded from the time of [ ] delivery [to the Office of the New York City Register]” (Real Property Law § 317).

Given that the mortgage was duly acknowledged, delivered and actually recorded, plaintiff is deemed to have constructive notice of it … . 80P2L LLC v U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 03275, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, , , , ,

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

 

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