CRIMINAL LAW

 

Detention and Frisk of Juvenile Supported by Reasonable Suspicion

 

The First Department determined the following scenario provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the detention and frisk of the juvenile:

 

A police officer testified that she was investigating an unruly crowd when she observed appellant walking towards her with his arm under his shirt, clutching an object held at his waist. Based on the rigidity of his body and how tightly he held the object, she believed it to be a weapon. As he passed by, she heard him say that he was "going to get him." When she approached with her shield visible around her neck, appellant moved towards her, whereupon she grabbed his hand and felt the handle of a knife. During a brief struggle, the knife fell to the ground. Appellant was placed under arrest and the knife, which had a six-inch blade, was recovered.  Matter of Daquan B, 2013 NY Slip Op 04974m 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

 

Elements of Tampering with Physical Evidence

 

The First Department explained the elements of the offense of tampering with physical evidence as follows:

 

…[A] person is guilty of the completed crime of tampering with physical evidence when, "[b]elieving that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment" (Penal Law 215.45[2]). 

 

The offense of tampering does not require the actual suppression of physical evidence, but only that a defendant perform an act of concealment while intending to suppress the evidence…. Regardless of whether the defendant is successful in suppressing the evidence, once an act of concealment is completed with the requisite mens rea, the offense of tampering has been committed.  People v Eaglesgrave, 2013 NY Slip Op 05001, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

 

Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial---Double Jeopardy

 

In precluding a retrial on double jeopardy grounds after the trial judge ordered a mistrial over defendant’s objection, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

 

In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches (see CPL 40.30[1][b];..), and the defendant has a "valued right to have his [or her] trial completed by a particular tribunal" ….  " [W]hen a mistrial is granted over the defendant's objection or without the defendant's consent, double jeopardy will, as a general rule, bar retrial'"…. "However, the right to have one's case decided by the first empaneled jury is not absolute, and a mistrial granted as the product of manifest necessity will not bar a retrial"… ."Manifest necessity" means "a high degree of necessity"; "the reasons underlying the grant of a mistrial must be necessitous, actual and substantial" …. " Even if the reasons for granting a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to granting a mistrial'"…. Mistrials premised on the prejudicial effect of improper evidence or argument are entitled to "great deference" …, since "the Trial Judge, better than any other, . . . can detect the ambience of partiality"…. Nonetheless, the trial judge must "temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his [or her] confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he [or she] might believe to be favorably disposed to his [or her] fate" … . Matter of Taylor v Dowling, 2013 NY Slip Op 05089, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

 

Writ of Coram Nobis Granted---Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

 

The Second Department granted defendant’s writ of coram nobis to vacate (dismissing the indictment), on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  Among the grounds for appeal not raised were: repugnant verdicts, erroneous and missing jury charges (including the statutory elements), failure to give a limiting charge with respect to evidence of defendant’s prior criminal record, and prosecutorial misconduct.  People v Morales, 2013 NY Slip Op 05094, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

 

Jury Was Given Written Copies of Portions of Jury Instructions;

Judge’s Responses to Subsequent Requests for Jury Instructions and Testimony Read-Back Required Reversal

 

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction on two grounds.  First, the trial judge’s response to the jury’s request for jury instructions (written copies of portions of the jury instructions had already been given to the jury) was not “meaningful” and required reversal in the absence of an objection.  And second, the read-back of testimony requested by the jury did not match the request and did not include crucial cross-examination:

 

As it was unclear from the jury's note whether the jury simply was seeking the portion of the written charge previously promised by County Court or some other unidentified portion of the charge  (or even  the  charge  in its entirety), it was  incumbent upon County Court to explore this inquiry with the jury and clarify the  nature of the  jury's request or, at the  very least, ascertain whether its response to the jury's request was satisfactory….Although defense counsel did not object to the manner in which County Court  responded  to the  jury's inquiry, County  Court  failed "to provide  a  meaningful response  to the  jury" and, in so  doing, failed to fulfill its "core responsibility" in this regard  ….    Accordingly, no objection was required to preserve this issue for appellate review… . * * *

 

Although CPL 310.30 affords a trial court a certain degree of latitude in responding to a jury request for additional information, the court's response must be meaningful … . Additionally, "[a] request for a reading of testimony generally is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back, and any such testimony should be read to the jury unless the jury indicates otherwise"… .  People v Clark, 105237, 3rd Dept 7-3-1

 

 

Evidence of Pornography Allowed as Molineux Evidence to Show Intent

 

In affirming the defendant’s conviction for sexual offenses against a young child, the Third Department determined the trial court properly allowed “Molineux” evidence about pornography found on and/or searched for on defendant’s computer. Among the reasons for letting the evidence of pornography in evidence was to demonstrate defendant’s intent.  The Third Department wrote:

 

While  intent can  often be inferred from the sexual act itself…, here, defendant claimed to the police investigator and the CPS caseworker that much  of the sexual contact and the child's knowledge occurred accidentally. The foregoing  was,  thus, admissible  to  prove  that defendant's  charged  sexual contact  was not accidental or mistaken but, rather, was intentional and sexual … and motivated by his unusual sexual interest in young children. Supreme Court carefully considered  the  prejudicial  effect  of  the  evidence, limited or excluded much  of it, including the actual images and videos, and provided numerous contemporaneous and appropriate limiting  instructions. We  cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in finding that the  probative  value  of the admitted evidence outweighed the potential for undue prejudice… People v Sorrell, 103426, 3rd Dept 7-3-13.

 

 

Evidence Needed to Corroborate Accomplice Testimony and Evidence Admissible at Restitution Hearing Explained

 

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for corroboration of accomplice testimony, and the admissible evidence in a restitution hearing:

 

“New York’s accomplice corroboration protection requires only enough nonaccomplice evidence to assure that the accomplices have offered credible probative evidence that connects the accomplice evidence to the defendant”…. Even the most “[s]eemingly insignificant matters may harmonize with the accomplice’s narrative so as to provide the necessary corroboration” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).    Here, defendant’s accomplice testified that he assisted defendant in burglarizing the victim’s home and stealing the victim’s car, and that testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses that defendant was seen driving the victim’s stolen car the day after the burglary.* * *

 

The victim testified at the restitution hearing and provided a detailed breakdown of the value of the stolen items as well as documents establishing the cost of replacing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, which was returned to her. In addition, the amount of restitution owed to the victim’s insurance company, which was financially harmed by reimbursing the victim for a portion of the cost of changing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, was supported by the claim it submitted to the Genesee County Probation Department. It is immaterial that an employee of the insurance company did not testify at the restitution hearing because “[a]ny relevant evidence, not legally privileged, may be received [at a restitution hearing] regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence” (CPL 400.30 [4] …). People v Wilson, 275, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Sentence Deemed Unduly Harsh and Severe

 

The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence for criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree from 2 to 7 years to 7 months.  The People conceded the original sentence was unduly harsh and severe.  People v Raszl, 596, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

440 Motion Seeking DNA Testing of Evidence Properly Denied

 

In affirming the denial of a 440 motion by a defendant convicted of murder seeking DNA testing of blood evidence, the Fourth Department wrote:

 

We conclude that the court properly denied that part of the motion seeking testing … “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant”… .  People v Swift, 617, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Evidence Insufficient to Support Criminal Contempt in the First Degree---No Evidence of Intent to Harass (Two Dissenting Justices)

 

The Fourth Department, over a dissent by two justices, determined the evidence was legally insufficient to support criminal contempt in the first degree:

 

Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant repeatedly made telephone calls to his ex-girlfriend, we agree with him that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he intended by those calls to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm her, with no purpose of legitimate communication (see § 215.51 [b] [iv];….    Rather, the only inference to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant made the calls with the intent to discuss issues of child support and visitation, not to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm his ex-girlfriend. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.  People v Webb, 619, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Motion to Vacate Conviction Based upon Co-Defendant’s Affidavit Stating Defendant Not Involved Denied

 

In affirming the denial of a 440 motion to vacate defendant’s conviction based upon a co-defendant’s affidavit stating the defendant was not involved in the crimes, the Fourth Department wrote:

 

It is well settled that on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must establish, inter alia, that “there is newly discovered evidence: (1) which will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) which was discovered since the trial; (3) which could not have been discovered prior to trial; (4) which is material; (5) which is not cumulative; and[] (6) which does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence” ….  People v Smith, 642, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Officer Outside Village Limits Did Not Have Jurisdiction to Arrest for Traffic Offenses but Arrest for DWI Okay

 

The Fourth Department determined a police officer, who was outside his jurisdiction when he arrested the defendant for DWI and traffic offenses, did not have the authority to arrest for the “petty offenses” but did have the authority to arrest for DWI:

 

The authority of a police officer to arrest an individual for a “petty offense” is limited to circumstances in which the officer “has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed such offense in his or her presence” (CPL 140.10 [1] [a]), and “only when .. . [s]uch offense was committed or believed by him or her to have been committed within the geographical area of such police officer’s employment or within one hundred yards of such geographical area” (CPL140.10 [2] [a]).  The term “petty offense” is defined as “a violation or a traffic infraction” (CPL 1.20 [39]). Here, the arresting officer is employed by the Village of Gowanda, and it is undisputed that the arrest did not take place within 100 yards of the village limits. Thus, we conclude that the officer exceeded his jurisdictional authority when he arrested defendant for committing the traffic infractions, and the court should have granted defendant’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal of those counts.

 

We further conclude, however, that the court properly refused to dismiss counts one and four of the indictment, charging defendant with felony driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest, respectively. Pursuant to CPL 140.10 (3), a police officer may arrest a person for a crime, as opposed to a petty offense, “whether or not such crime was committed within the geographical area of such police officer’s employment, and he or she may make such arrest within the state, regardless of the situs of the commission of the crime.”  People v Twoguns, 668, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Defendant Was Lawfully Seized by Police Under these Facts

 

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, finding that the defendant was not unlawfully seized under the following facts:

 

At the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that he stopped defendant because defendant was riding the motorbike in the road without a helmet.  When the officer asked defendant whether he had any identification, defendant answered, “no,” and took a step back, whereupon the officer reached toward defendant in an attempt to frisk him.  Before the officer could detain him, however, defendant ran away and, during his flight, punched another officer who had joined in the pursuit. Defendant was soon apprehended and found to be in possession of a loaded firearm, 20 bags of marihuana, and more than $2,000 in cash. People v Bradley, 685, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

All But Rape First Charges Were Time-Barred---Different Statute of Limitations for Rape First

 

The Fourth Department determined all charges but the Rape in the First Degree charge had to be dismissed as time-barred.  A change in the statute of limitations for Rape First applied to all such charges not time-barred at the time of the statutory change:

 

in 2002, when the crimes were committed, the statute of limitations for the charged offenses was five years (see CPL 30.10 former [2] [b]).  Because he was not charged until more than seven years later, defendant raised a facially viable statute of limitations defense, and the burden thus shifted to the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable  We conclude that the People satisfied their burden with respect to the charge of rape in the first degree.  As the People correctly contend, the legislature amended CPL 30.10 in 2006 so as to abolish the statute of limitations for four sex offenses, including rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree (see L 2006, ch 3, § 1).  The amendment applied not only to crimes committed after its effective date of June 23, 2006, but also to offenses that were not yet time-barred (see L 2006, ch 3, § 5 [a]).  People v Burroughs, 590, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

 

Suppression of Evidence Reversed---Search of Interconnected Rooms Did Not Violate Terms of Search Warrant

 

The Fourth Department reversed County Court’s suppression ruling.  The Fourth Department determined that a search warrant for “a business store front style building…” allowed the officers to search a series of inter-connected rooms behind the storefront area:

 

We agree with the People that the warrant sufficiently described the premises to be searched …. Although “a warrant to search a subunit of a multiple occupancy structure is void if it fails to describe the subunit to be searched and . . . describes [only] the larger structure” …, here the series of interconnected rooms were not “subunits,” but were instead part of the single rental unit ….  People v Cook, 601 7-5-13

 

 

 

Valid Waiver of Appeal Did Not Encompass Challenge to Severity of Sentence in this Case

 

The Fourth Department noted that a valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass a challenge to the severity of the sentence when the defendant was not advised of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration.  The court, however, concluded the sentence was not unduly harsh or severe. People v Virgil, 783, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Statement Correctly Admitted as Dying Declaration

 

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department held that a statement was correctly admitted as a dying declaration:

 

{The trial court admitted] as a dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule the testimony of a prosecution witness that, after being shot in the inner thigh, the victim stated, “I got robbed” and “I got shot.”    The People presented evidence establishing that, when the witness arrived at the scene, the victim was bleeding heavily from a femoral artery wound, his clothes were soaked in blood from the waist down, and he was inhaling and exhaling very hard.  The victim stated to the witness, “I’m gonna die, I’m gonna die”; he then became totally unresponsive and, shortly thereafter, he died. Thus, we conclude that the court properly determined that the victim’s statements were made with “a sense of impending death, with no hope of recovery” …  .  People v Elder, 713, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Evidence Insufficient to Support Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree—No One In Line of Fire

 

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree in a shooting case where there was no evidence anyone was near the line of fire:

 

“A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct [that] creates a grave risk of death to another person” (Penal Law § 120.25). The evidence at trial established only that defendant stood on a street corner and fired up to five shots from a handgun. The People “presented no evidence that any person . . . ‘was in or near the line of fire’ ” so as to create a grave risk of death to any such person… .  People v Stanley, 757, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

Affidavit Stating that Third Party Confessed to Murder Required a Hearing Pursuant to a Motion to Vacate the Judgment of Conviction Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence

 

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a hearing should be held on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence.  The evidence was an affidavit from a person to whom a third person is alleged to have confessed to the murder.  The Fourth Department determined the hearsay statement could be considered as a basis for the 440 motion because it met the criteria of a statement against penal interest and, although there was no showing the declarant was unavailable (a criterium for admissibility under this hearsay exception), it was reasonable to assume the declarant would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify (thereby becoming unavailable).

 

We agree with defendant that where, as here, the declarations exculpate the defendant, they “are subject to a more lenient standard, and will be found ‘sufficient if [the supportive evidence] establish[es] a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true’ ”…. That is because “ ‘[d]epriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence [at trial] another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may . . . be offered [only] as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense’ ” ….  Although the People contend that there is no evidence that the third party is unavailable, we conclude that, inasmuch as the statements attributed to the third party implicate him in a murder, there is a likelihood that, if called to testify at a trial, he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and thus become unavailable … .  People v McFarland, 729, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

 

Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses

 

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by evidence of DNA testing:

 

The court properly admitted files prepared by the New York City Medical Examiner's Office containing DNA profiles derived from the testing of evidence recovered from the crime scenes, since the documents containing the DNA profiles, which were prepared prior to the defendant's arrest, "did not, standing alone, link [him] to the crime" …. The testimony of the People's expert witness established that she conducted the critical analysis at issue by comparing the DNA profiles derived from the crime scene evidence to the defendant's DNA profile and concluding that all of the profiles matched…. Moreover, the DNA profile generated from the swab of the defendant's cheek, standing alone, shed no light on the issue of the defendant's guilt in the absence of the expert's testimony that it matched the profiles derived from the crime scene evidence….  People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 05096, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

 

References to Fingerprint Evidence Processed by Non-testifying Technician Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation

 

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by latent fingerprint evidence processed by a technician who did not testify, the Fourth Department explained:

 

The technician who processed and photographed the fingerprint did not compare the latent print to the fingerprints of defendant or any other suspect. Thus, the technician’s findings were not testimonial because the latent fingerprint, “standing alone, shed[s] no light on the guilt of the accused in the absence of an expert’s opinion that the [latent fingerprint] match[es] a known sample”… .Moreover, the analyst who determined that the latent print matched one of defendant’s fingerprints in fact testified at trial and was available for cross-examination.    Therefore, defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him was not violated… .  People v Jackson, 645, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW

 

Reference to Old Offense that Was Dismissed Okay in “Mental Abnormality/Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding

 

The Fourth Department determined that evidence of a 1991 offense that was dismissed with the record sealed was admissible in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 “dangerous sex offender” proceeding to determined whether defendant had a mental abnormality:

 

Evidence of prior crimes is commonly admissible in article 10 proceedings because it is probative of whether a designated felony was sexually motivated and whether a respondent has a mental abnormality…, and evidence of uncharged crimes likewise is admissible in article 10 proceedings because “Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not limit the proof to acts that resulted in criminal convictions when considering the issue of mental abnormality”… . Matter of State of New York v Schrainkler,, 657, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

DEFAMATION

 

Plaintiff Unable to Prove Actual Malice—Summary Judgment to Defendant

 

In determining a libel complaint brought by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) against defendants based upon an ad defendants placed in the New York Times which was captioned “Why is [HSUS] Helping a Terrorist Group Raise Money?”, the First Department wrote:

 

The court should have dismissed the amended complaint as against all of the defendants. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, it is a public figure…. It thrust itself to the forefront of the public controversy on animal cruelty and sought to influence public action on this issue. Accordingly, as a public figure, plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that defendants published the ad at issue with actual malice in order to prevail on any claim of libel…. 

 

"[A] libel defendant's burden in support of summary judgment is not . . . to prove as a matter of law that it did not publish with actual malice, but to point to deficiencies in the record that will prevent plaintiff from proving that fact by clear and convincing evidence" …. Here, defendants were entitled to summary judgment because they cited deficiencies in the record that prevent plaintiff from proving actual malice (i.e., that defendants "entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [its] publication or acted with a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity . . . at the time of publication") by clear and convincing evidence…. Humane League of Phila Inc v Berman & Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 04989, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

 

Libel Action Against Reporter Dismissed—No Showing of Gross Irresponsibility in Gathering and Verifying Information

 

In dismissing a libel action against a reporter who erroneously alleged in a newspaper story that plaintiff used money collected from students for workbooks to buy faculty lunches and an air conditioner for the faculty workroom, the Second Department wrote:

 

"[W]hen the claimed defamation arguably involves a matter of public concern, a private plaintiff must prove that the media defendant acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties'"…. The "standard of gross irresponsibility' demands no more than that a publisher utilize methods of verification that are reasonably calculated to produce accurate copy" …. 

 

Here, the record reveals that …some of the factual claims in the article and accompanying editorial were true, some of the claims were not, … .However, we nevertheless conclude that the defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the article involved matters of public concern …, and that [the reporter] did not act in a grossly irresponsible manner while gathering and verifying information for the article…. Matovik v Times Beacon Record Newspapers,. 2013 NY Slip Op 05051, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

 

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES

 

Criteria for Domicile Explained

 

In upholding Surrogate Court’s determination decedent’s domicile was New York, the First Department explained the relevant criteria as follows:

 

The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act defines domicile as "[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return" (SCPA 103[15]). "The determination of an individual's domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location"…. A person's domicile is generally a mixed question of fact and law, which the court must determine after reviewing the pertinent evidence…. No single factor is dispositive…, and the unique facts and circumstances of each case must be considered…. A party alleging a change of domicile has the burden of proving that change by clear and convincing evidence … .  Matter of Ranftle, 2013 NY Slip Op 05006, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

 

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW/CONTRACT

 

Collective Bargaining Agreement Unambiguous—Lifetime Health Benefits Mandated

 

In concluding the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) unambiguously provided lifetime health insurance coverage to the petitioners pursuant to the CBA in effect upon their retirement, the Third Department wrote:

 

A  written agreement that is clear and complete on its face must  be  enforced  according  to the  plain meaning  of its terms  …Extrinsic evidence may  be considered to discern the  parties' intent only  if the  contract is ambiguous,  which  is a question of law for the court to resolve…. In  determining  whether  an  ambiguity  exists, "'[t]he court  should examine  the  entire contract and  consider the relation of the parties and the circumstances under which it was executed. Particular words  should be  considered, not as if isolated from the context, but in the light of the obligation as a whole  and the intention of the parties as manifested thereby'"… . Pursuant to the CBAs in effect at the time each petitioner retired, an employee who had completed 10 years of service was entitled to health insurance coverage  "in retirement."    In order to receive that coverage at a rate of 100% per individual and 75% per dependent, the only requirement was that the individual "retire during the term of the contract."    Matter of Warner, 516038, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

 

 

LABOR LAW

 

Unsafe Access to Roof Supported Summary Judgment

 

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) based on the failure to provide equipment which would allow safe access to the roof where the window-washing equipment in need of repair was located, the First Department explained:

 

The record demonstrates that the Met and Lincoln Center failed to provide adequate safety devices to protect plaintiff from the risks associated with gaining access to the Opera House roof and the steel carriage rail, and therefore they are liable for plaintiff's injuries under Labor Law § 240(1)…. Not only did plaintiff have to be elevated to the roof of the Opera House from the sixth floor, for which a ladder was provided, but he also had to use both hands to close the hatch door while standing on the ladder. No safety device was provided to protect him against the risk associated with breaking three-point contact with the ladder so as to use both hands to close the hatch door. Mayo v Metropolitan Opera Assn Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 04993, 1st Dept 7-2-13