You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

THE INSURER’S NEARLY TWO-MONTH DELAY BEFORE DISCLAIMING COVERAGE RENDERED THE DISCLAIMER UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage was not timely as a matter of law. The delay in notification was about two months:

“[A] timely disclaimer pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(d) is required when a claim falls within the coverage terms but is denied based on a policy exclusion” … . The purpose of Insurance Law § 3420 is to protect the insured, injured party, or any other claimant with an interest in the outcome, from prejudice based on a delayed denial of coverage … . “[T]imeliness of an insurer’s disclaimer is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage” … . The question as to whether the insurer disclaimed coverage as soon as reasonably possible after it first learns of the ground for disclaimer is necessarily case-specific … . “However, where there is no excuse or mitigating factor, the issue poses a legal question for the court, and courts have found relatively short periods to be unreasonable as a matter of law” … .

Here, defendant’s disclaimer, dated December 24, 2014, was untimely as a matter of law. Defendant’s position that it only received plaintiff’s claim on December 16, 2014 is unpersuasive. Defendant was on notice of the underlying accident several months before it disclaimed coverage and commenced an investigation with respect to the alleged accident. Therefore, defendant was sufficiently aware of the facts that would support a disclaimer, but waited almost two months before disclaiming coverage … . ADD Plumbing, Inc. v Burlington Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 01498, First Dept 3-16-21

 

PLAINTIFF HAD TO USE AN A-FRAME LADDER ON TOP OF A SCAFFOLD TO REACH THE WORK AREA; THE SCAFFOLD MOVED AND PLAINTIFF FELL TO THE GROUND; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and one of the Labor Law 241(6) causes of action properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiff was using a scaffold that wasn’t high enough. He therefore used an A-frame ladder in the closed position on top of the scaffold. The scaffold move, the ladder fell over and plaintiff fell to the ground:

… [D]efendants failed to raise a triable issue. Defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident is unavailing, since he was not provided a proper safety device to prevent his fall, and that failure is a cause of his injuries … .

Additionally, contrary to defendants’ argument, there is no requirement for Labor Law § 240(1) purposes that plaintiff know exactly the cause of his accident, or what caused the scaffold or ladder to move, where there is no dispute that the safety devices failed … . Moreover, it is not relevant that the ladder and scaffold were free from defects … .

[Defendant] failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on alleged violations of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) and (iv), as there is sufficient testimony in the record to support such violations, including that the ladder was unsecured and lacked rubber footing, and no one was holding it in place at the time of plaintiff’s fall. [Defendant] failed to establish as a matter of law that the alleged violations were not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident. Martinez v ST-DIL LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01513, First Dept 3-16-21

 

,

THE ELEVATOR COMPANY, BY CONTRACT, HAD COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE; THEREFORE THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM IN THIS RES IPSA LOQUITUR ELEVATOR-MALFUNCTION-ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, recalling and vacating a decision in this case released on December 8, 2020, determined the building owner (1067 Fifth) and manager (Elliman) did not have constructive or action notice of the defect in the elevator door which allegedly caused it to close on plaintiff’s shoulder, pinning her while the elevator descended. However liability may be demonstrated under the res ipsa loquitur theory. But because the building owner and manager had, by contract, relinquished all control over the maintenance of the elevator to defendant elevator company, American, their motions for summary judgment were granted:

… [U]nder the terms of its contract with 1067 Fifth, American was responsible for providing “full comprehensive maintenance and repair services” for the elevators, which included maintaining “[t]he entire vertical transportation system,” including “all engineering, material, labor, testing, and inspections needed to achieve work specified by the contract.” Further, under the terms of the contract, maintenance “include[s], but is not limited to, preventive services, emergency callback services, inspection and testing services, repair and/or direct replacement component renewal procedures.” The contract also provided for American to “schedule [ ] systematic examinations, adjustments, cleaning and lubrication of all machinery, machinery spaces, hoistways and pits,” and to do all “repairs, renewals, and replacements . . . as soon as scheduled or other examinations reveal the necessity of the same.” Further, American agreed to provide emergency call-back service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Given such broad contractual responsibilities, American’s contract can be said to have “entirely displaced” the responsibility of 1067 Fifth and Elliman to maintain the safety of the building’s elevators, which gave rise to a duty owed directly to plaintiff by American (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). Sanchez v 1067 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 01522, First Dept 3-16-21

 

,

WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN AN ORDER OR A JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION UPON WHICH IT IS BASED, THE DECISION CONTROLS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that where a judgment or order is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls:

“A written order [or judgment] must conform strictly to the court’s decision and in the event of an inconsistency between a judgment and a decision or order upon which it is based, the decision or order controls” … . “Such an inconsistency may be corrected either by way of a motion for resettlement or on appeal” … .

The motion court’s decision, amended to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action for breach of the … modified agreement, also found that plaintiff was entitled to a money judgment in his favor for past due amounts owed. Because there is a conflict between the relief the motion court found plaintiff was entitled to in its decision, and the relief granted to plaintiff in the judgment, which made no provision for a money judgment as to plaintiff’s first cause of action, the court’s decision controls. Schwartzbard v Cogan, 2021 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-16-21

 

, , ,

TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY WERE NOT DUPLICATIVE; THEREFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS’ FAILURE TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST SUMMONS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE SECOND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined that two actions brought by the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) seeking the removal of four large industrial shipping containers from petitioner’s auto-repair-shop premises were not duplicative. Therefore the DOB’s failure to appeal the dismissal of the first summons did not preclude the second summons. The second summons was dismissed by the hearing officer but was reinstated by the OATH [NYC Office of Trials and Hearings] Appeals Unit. The First Department upheld the reversal by the Appeals Unit. [The decision covers several substantive issues not summarized here]:

Petitioners argue primarily that although the summonses cite to two different provisions of the law — a Zoning Resolution violation and a certificate of occupancy violation pursuant to Administrative Code § 28-118.3.2 — the same proof and arguments were presented at the hearings for both summonses, namely, the certificate of occupancy, photographs depicting storage of the shipping containers on the property, the argument that the shipping containers would be transformed into trucks, and the counterargument that the storage was not a permitted use. They contend that this analysis is sufficient to demonstrate the duplicative nature of the summonses. The argument is unavailing. * * *

Here … the same body of evidence is used to prove two different violations, a violation of the Zoning Resolution, which covers the permitted uses and businesses within a specific area, and a violation of the certificate of occupancy, which applies specifically to the property, and describes the legal occupancy and use of that property. Moreover, the remedy for the two summonses is not the same. The first summons demanded that petitioners discontinue the illegal use, while the second summons provided for alternative remedies — discontinue illegal use or amend the certificate of occupancy. Accordingly, the OATH Appeals Unit’s finding that the second summons was not duplicative of the first summons was not arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Karakash v Del Valle, 2021 NY Slip Op 01484, First Dept 3-11-21

 

, ,

REPORTING AN ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TO THE POLICE DOES NOT EVINCE MALICE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING THE REPORT; THE DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the defamation action based upon defendant’s filing a sexual assault complaint with the police was protected by qualified immunity and the nature of the complaint did not evince the malice required to overcome the qualified immunity. The sexual assault trial ended in a hung jury and defendant agreed to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal as the disposition of her charges against plaintiff. Plaintiff was formerly an assistant district attorney and defendant was a reporter for the Daily News:

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individuals who, like defendant, act “in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of [her] own affairs, in a matter where h[er] interest is concerned” … . To overcome the qualified privilege protecting defendant’s statements to the police, plaintiff was required to sufficiently allege that she published the statements with actual malice, i.e., that defendant “acted out of personal spite or ill will, with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity, or with a high degree belief that [her] statements were probably false” … . * * *

Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of alleging actual malice sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege attaching to defendant’s statements to the police. Even as alleged in the complaint, the statements are a straightforward rendition of the incident that defendant claims occurred during a car ride with plaintiff. There was nothing excessive or “vituperative” in the character of the reported statements that would support an inference of actual malice … . Indeed, it is difficult to see how defendant could have been more succinct or restrained in her description of the events while accomplishing her purpose: to report to the police that she had been the victim of sexual assault. Sagaille v Carrega, 2021 NY Slip Op 01369, First Dept 3-9-21

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined County Law 52, not General Municipal Law (GML) 50, applied to a “money had and received” lawsuit against the district attorney of New York County. Although the district attorney is considered a city employee for purposes the General Municipal Law, the district attorney is elected by the citizens of New York County and is subject to the provisions of the County Law. The General Municipal Law notice of claim requirement applies only to tort actions. However, the County Law notice of claim requirement applies to this action for money had and received. No notice of claim was filed:

Defendant falls back on the position that, even if no notice of claim was required under GML section 50-k, one was required under County Law section 52. …

Although this section also refers to GML sections 50-e and 50-i, the Court of Appeals has expressly held that it applies to non-tort claims … . Further, County Law section 52 applies to county employees … . Nevertheless, plaintiffs assert that in arguing for application of the County Law, the District Attorney is trying to have it both ways, since he claims to be a city employee for purposes of the General Municipal Law, but a county employee for purposes of the County Law. It is true that New York City law considers the District Attorney to be a city employee … . However, this is no reason not to apply County Law section 52, since there is no county-level government organization in the City of New York that could be considered the District Attorney’s employer for administrative purposes such as paying his or her salary. Moreover, the District Attorney is elected by the voters of New York County, not New York City. Finally, this Court has cited County Law section 52 in holding that a notice of claim is required before filing an action against the office of a District Attorney in the City of New York … . Slemish Corp. S.A. v Morgenthau, 2021 NY Slip Op 01370, First Dept 3-9-21

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not present sufficient evidence in support of their motion to change venue. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants, who were hired to paint newly-constructed residential property, did substandard work. Suit was brought in the county of plaintiffs’ residence and business, New York County. The defendants sought to change the venue to Suffolk County where the property is located and defendants reside:

Where venue has properly been designated by the plaintiff based on the residence of either party, a defendant seeking a change of venue under CPLR 510(3) must make a detailed evidentiary showing that the nonparty witnesses will, in fact, be inconvenienced absent such relief. The affidavit of the moving party under CPLR 510(3) must (1) contain the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue … …

… [D]efendants neglected to show with sufficient particularity the facts upon which nonparty McAulife is expected to testify. … Defendants did not submit an affidavit from McAulife, relying instead on counsel’s affirmation wherein he states that McAulife was “familiar with the work performed by defendants at 10 Two Trees Lane,” and “familiar with defendants in their business capacity.” Without further detail about when, where, and under what circumstances McAulife had occasion to become “familiar with the work,” defendants’ burden has not been met … . Defendants also fail to set forth McAulife’s name, address, and occupation, or how he would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue. The fact that the case involves work on a property located in Suffolk County does not justify an inversion of the burden of proof or relieve the moving party of its burden of establishing that the convenience of the nonparty witnesses would be served by a discretionary change of venue … . 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahone, 2021 NY Slip Op 01371, First Dept 3-9-21

 

, , , , ,

THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW (VGM) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR CPLR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT S CORPORATION MAY BE ONE AND THE SAME, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversing Supreme Court, determined the seven-year statute of limitations in NYC’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM) was not preempted by the one-year statute of limitations for assault in the CPLR and the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action should have survived the motion to dismiss even though the S corporation (PDR) and the defendant (Rofe) may be one and the same. The complaint alleged plaintiffs were subjected to unwanted sexual touching by defendant Rofe during voice-over coaching sessions offered by defendant S corporation (PDR):

… [W]e find that the legislative intent of the VGM was to create a civil rights remedy or cause of action such as in VAWA, rather than to extend the statute of limitations for a particular class of assaults. Since the nature of the claim is for a civil rights violation (providing a remedy for those subjected to violence because of their gender), the seven-year limitations period provided in the Administrative Code is not preempted by the CPLR statute of limitations for assault claims. * * *

To be sure, defendants may be correct that PDR essentially has no corporate structure separate from Rofe. Plaintiffs themselves do not appear to distinguish between Rofe and PDR in their brief. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Rofe was an employee of PDR and, through the submission of additional evidence in opposition to the motion to dismiss, have also sufficiently alleged that there may have been other employees of PDR who either hired, or supervised Rofe or whom Rofe hired or supervised. The acts of a corporation’s agent and the knowledge acquired by the agent are presumptively imputed to the corporation … . Thus, Rofe’s knowledge (as an alleged agent of PDR) that an employee was potentially violent or prone to sexual assaults would normally be imputed to PDR, potentially requiring PDR to supervise that employee, and the cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision should be reinstated as against PDR … . Engelman v Rofe, 2021 NY Slip Op 01321, First Dept 3-2-21

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DEFERRED TO THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS’ INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS ZONING RESOLUTION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING; THE BUILDING IS COMPLETE AND THE DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS APPLIES TO PRECLUDE THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have deferred o the judgment of the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) which allowed the construction of a 55 story condominium building. At issue was an ambiguous Zoning Resolution and the relationship between zoning lots and tax lots. The First Department held that the BSA had the necessary expertise to interpret the relevant statute and Supreme Court should have allowed the BSA’s interpretation to stand. In addition, the First Department found that the mootness doctrine had not been waived and the doctrine applied to the appeal because the building was fully completed and so steps to halt construction had been taken during the lengthy litigation:

The BSA’s interpretation of the relevant subdivision was “neither irrational, unreasonable nor inconsistent with the governing statutes” … . It rationally interpreted the resolution and properly considered Amsterdam’s reliance on the DOB’s [NYC Department of Building’s] longstanding Minkin Memo and the history of the block, as several other buildings on the block were issued certificates of occupancy, even though they also include partial tax lots. “When an agency adopts a construction which is then followed for ‘a long period of time,’ such interpretation ‘is entitled to great weight and may not be ignored'” … . …

“[T]he doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy”… . In the construction context, “several factors [are] significant in evaluating claims of mootness[,] [c]hief among them [being] a challenger’s failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation” … . Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01228, First Dept 3-2-21

 

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