Representative Matters

Administrative Law
• • Carr v. DeBlasio, 197 AD3d 124 (1st Dept. 2021): Justice Singh, in a unanimous opinion, granted a petition for summary inquiry pursuant to New York City Charter Section 1109 stemming from the death of Eric Garner during his arrest by members of the NYPD.
  • New York City v. Bloomberg, 30 Misc. 3d 161 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2011) aff’d 95 AD3d (1st Dept. 2012) aff’d 19 NY3d 712 (2012): Justice Singh held that the City of New York had validly implemented a plan permitting both institutional providers and private attorneys to provide criminal representation to indigent defendants in conflict cases.
  • New York State Land Title Association, Inc. v. New York State Department of Financial Services, 169 AD3d 18 (1st Dept. 2019): Justice Singh, in a unanimous opinion, found that insurance regulations promulgated by the state prohibiting an alleged practice of kickbacks to title closers were unambiguous and had a rational basis. However, the state’s attempt to regulate certain fees was invalid and severable from the remainder of the regulations. Accordingly, the regulatory scheme was not annulled in its entirety.
Business Commercial
• • Arena Invs., L.P. v. DCK Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 215 A.D.3d 155 (1st Dept, 2023): Justice Singh, in a unanimous decision, held that defendant, a party to multilateral contracts, could be sued by its contracting counterparty for inducing a breach of those contracts. He reasoned that because defendants’ rights and duties were separate from those of the breaching party, a cause of action sounding in tortious interference was permissible.
  • IKB Intl., S.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 208 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dept, 2022), aff’d as modified 40 NY 3d 277 (2023): In this residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) litigation, Justice Singh dissented from the branch of the majority’s holding, which held that trustees can be held liable for an affirmative duty to enforce the seller’s repurchase obligations where such an affirmative duty is not expressly provided for in the agreements. The Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Singh and reversed the majority on this issue finding that the agreements did not impose an implied duty to enforce the repurchase obligations.
  • Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. Vimeo, Inc., 205 A.D.3d 23 (1st Dept, 2022), leave denied 30 NY3d 912 (2022): Plaintiff sued a video-hosting service for removing videos that defendant claimed made false or misleading claims that childhood vaccination leads to autism. Justice Singh, writing for a unanimous panel, found that liability was precluded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
  • Turner Constr. Co. v. Nastasi & Assoc., Inc., 192 A.D.3d 103 (1st Dept, 2020): Justice Singh, in a unanimous decision, found issues of fact as to whether a one-year contractual statute of limitations to raise claims was enforceable.
  • Epiphany Community Nursery Sch. v. Levey, 171 A.D.3d 1 (1st Dept, 2019), appeal withdrawn 34 NY3d 927 (2019): Justice Singh, over a dissent by a single justice, reinstated plaintiff’s fraud claim, finding that the claim was not time barred and had been sufficiently pled.
  • Reif v. Nagy, 175 A.D.3d 107 (1st Dept, 2019), leave to appeal dismissed 35 NY3d 936 (2020): Plaintiffs, the heirs of a well-known cabaret artist and art collector who had been murdered by the Nazis while in a concentration camp during World War II, sued for replevin. Justice Singh held, in a unanimous decision, that plaintiffs had superior title to the valuable paintings created by the artist Egon Schiele, which had been looted by the Nazis when Germany annexed Austria.
  • MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 166 A.D.3d 13 (1st Dept, 2018), leave denied 32 NY3d 912 (2018): Justice Singh, writing for a unanimous panel, found that defendant had the unilateral right to terminate a licensing agreement and patent portfolio license under the plain language of the agreements entered into by sophisticated parties.
  • PAF-PAR LLC v. Silberg, 2017 WL 413178 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2017) aff’d for the reasons stated 157 AD3d 476 (1st Dept. 2018): Justice Singh found that plaintiff lacked standing to enforce a guaranty. Plaintiff sued on the guaranty after assigning the loan documents to a third party and after the borrower had paid the amount set forth in a payoff letter issued by plaintiff to the borrower.
  • Public Sector Pension Investment Board v. Saba Capital Management L.P., et al., 2016 WL 469642 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2016): Plaintiff sued defendants for, inter alia, breach of contract and fiduciary duty in connection with a demand to redeem its shares. Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to properly calculate the value of the securities in accordance with an offering memorandum and other fund documents. Justice Singh granted the defendants’ motion to the extent of dismissing the causes of action sounding in tortious interference of contract and aiding and abetting interposed against the individual defendant.
  • Ambac Assur. Co v. First Franklin Financial Corp., 2015 WL 5578267 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2015): Plaintiff in this RMBS litigation sued for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. Defendant answered and interposed counterclaims. Justice Singh granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defense of unclean hands and denied the motion as to the defense of in pari delicto.
  • Verizon New England v. Transcom Enhanced Services Inc., 27 Misc 3d 1236(A) (Sup. Ct. 2010) aff’d 98 AD3d 213 (1st Dept. 2012) aff’d 21 NY3d 66 (2013): In a judgment enforcement proceeding, Justice Singh found that an at-will prepayment service agreement that lacked an agreement to engage in future dealing was not a property interest or debt subject to a New York CPLR 5222(b) restraining notice.
Class Action & Mass Tort
• • Weinstein v. Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 41 Misc. 3d 1220(A) (Sup. Ct. 2013) aff’d 138 AD2d 546 (1st Dept. 2016): Justice Singh granted the motion by current and former non-managerial employees’ putative class action alleging that defendant underpaid employees for work they had performed. The court found that the elements necessary to permit this litigation as a class action had been satisfied pursuant to New York CPLR 901(a).
  • Valle, et al., v. Popular Community Bank, 2016 WL 642720 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2016) aff’d 149 AD3d 633 (1st Dept. 2017): Plaintiffs brought this class action suit challenging the bank’s overdraft policies. Justice Singh denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, which was predicated upon New York General Business Law Section 349. He found that the claim was not time barred, as it related back to the original proceeding. Justice Singh also held that plaintiffs had sufficiently pled deceptive conduct to maximize overdraft charges, including the bank’s failure to disclose prior to the completion of a transaction that the withdrawal would cause on overdraw on the plaintiffs’ and class members’
Employment Law
• • Auffarth, et al. v. Herald National Bank, 2015 WL 5735889 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2015): Plaintiff employees sued defendant bank for, inter alia, breach of contract for failure to pay wages and bonuses after their employment was terminated. Plaintiffs alleged that the bank violated NYLL Sections 191 and 193. Justice Singh granted in part the bank’s motion for summary judgment. He denied the motion in part finding that the employment agreements were ambiguous as to whether the employment was at will or for a fixed term. He subsequently conducted a jury trial at which the plaintiffs prevailed.
  • Simon, et al. v. Kyrejko, 2017 WL 2362195 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2017): Plaintiffs commenced this action, claiming that defendants engaged in a scheme to eliminate their minority shareholder rights and wrongfully terminated their employment with the company. Justice Singh denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that that the agreement was ambiguous as to whether the termination was improper.
  • Saleeby v. Remco Maintenance, LLC, 2016 WL 4000631(Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2016) aff’d 148 AD3d 570 (1st Dept. 2017): Plaintiff was terminated from his position as president and CEO of defendant. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, alleging that his membership interest was improperly redeemed at a fair market value of zero dollars. Justice Singh denied defendant’s motion to dismiss in part. The agreement provided that the board had the discretion to determine the fair market value of the repurchase of a member’s interest at its “sole discretion” and in “good faith.” Whether the board acted in good faith could not be decided on a motion to dismiss the pleading. Justice Singh granted the branch of the motion to dismiss the conversion claim as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action and dismissed the claims against the individually named defendants.
Family Law
• • Linda G. v James G., 156 A.D. 3d 25 (1st Dept. 2017): In this matrimonial litigation, Justice Singh held that that an unequal distribution of the marital home was correct under the “just and proper” standard of New York Domestic Relations Law Section 236(B)(5)(d)(14) based on the spouse’s conduct that adversely impacted the family.
  • Matter of F.W. (Monroe W.), 183 A.D. 3d 276 (1st Dept. 2020): Justice Singh, writing for a unanimous panel, held that although New York’s Family Court Act was silent as to a time frame for determining a post-dispositional neglect proceeding, due process required a prompt hearing where a parent and child are separated.
Insurance
• • Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Giorgio Armani Corp., 230 N.Y.S.3d 49 (1st Dept. 2025): This declaratory judgment action arose from multiple instances of sexual harassment and assault by an employee, whom the employer failed to deter or punish. Three underlying lawsuits were filed. Two different insurance policies were implicated in this insurance coverage dispute. One insurer acknowledged coverage of the first two actions. It denied coverage on the third action, asserting that the action was filed outside its coverage period. Justice Singh found that the third action was sufficiently related to the prior actions, arising from a common nexus of facts; namely, the conduct of the employee and the employer’s failure to take appropriate action. Accordingly, the third suit was covered under the earlier insurance policy.
  • Nadkos, Inc. v. Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co., 162 A.D.3d 7 (1st Dept, 2018), aff’d 34 NY3d 1 (2019): On an appeal of first impression, Justice Singh held, in a unanimous opinion, that New York Insurance Law Section 3420(d)(2) was preempted by federal law.
  • Repwest Ins. Co. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 166 A.D.3d 61 (1st Dept, 2018): Justice Singh, writing for a unanimous panel, found that an automobile liability policy’s territory of coverage clause that covers accidents anywhere in the United States was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a primary insurer of the offending vehicle for a rear-end collision that occurred in North Carolina.
  • Syncora Guarantee Inc. v. Macquarie Securities (USA) Inc., 2017 WL 589104 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2017) aff’d 164 A.D. 3d 1141 (1st Dept. 2018): Plaintiff insurer issued unconditional and irrevocable financial guaranty insurance policies that guaranteed payment of bonds backed by income from toll bridges and a toll tunnel. Plaintiff sued for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, alleging that defendant had overstated the income derived from the toll facilities. Justice Singh dismissed the claim for rescissory and punitive damages. He denied the motion seeking to dismiss the misrepresentation claim, reasoning that the alleged misrepresentations were a proximate cause of the insurer’s actual losses.
Personal Injury & Torts
• • Verdi Dinowitz, 232 A.D.3d 31 (1st Dept., 2024): Plaintiff sued, alleging that defendant’s statements made at a public meeting were defamatory. The Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Justice Singh, in a unanimous opinion, reversed the trial court finding that the statements made by defendant were non-actionable opinion and that plaintiff failed to show that defendant acted with actual malice.
  • Waterbury v. New York City Ballet, Inc., 205 AD.3d 154 (1st Dept. 2022): Plaintiff, a former ballet student, sued a principal ballet dancer pursuant to Section 10-180 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had released her intimate images without her consent. Plaintiff also sued the ballet school for negligent hiring and retention of the principal dancer. Justice Singh, writing for the panel with one justice dissenting, in part held that a cause of action had been stated against both defendants.
  • Toussaint v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., 174 AD3d 42 (1st Dept. 2019) reversed 38 N.Y. 89 (2022): Plaintiff was allegedly injured on a construction site and sued defendants pursuant to New York’s Labor Law (NYLL). In a split decision, Justice Singh found that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the Industrial Code section at issue was sufficiently specific to sustain his claim under Section 241(6) of the NYLL. The Court of Appeals reversed in a split decision, with the chief judge dissenting.
  • Powers v. 31 East 31 LLC, 38 Misc.3d 1211(A) (Sup. Ct. Court NY Co. 2012) reversed 105 AD3d 657 (1st Dept. 2013) reversed 24 NY3d 84 (2014): Intoxicated plaintiff fell off the roof of a building without a railing or parapet, sustaining catastrophic injuries. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Justice Singh denied the motion finding issues of fact based on the competing affidavits of the experts on the issue of whether or not a parapet was required for the building under the applicable New York City building codes. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the defendant summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division finding that defendant failed to sustain its burden that the absence of a railing did not violate the buildings regulations.
Professional Liability
• • Knox v. Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, 168 A.D. 70 (1st Dept. 2018): Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Singh reversed the trial court and dismissed the legal malpractice, fraud and New York Judiciary Law Section 487 claims. He reasoned that even assuming on the motion to dismiss that counsel was negligent, plaintiff was unable to demonstrate “but for” causation as a matter of law
  • Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Plaintiff v. Telecommunications Systems, Inc., 2017 WL 1836431 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2017) aff’d 155 A.D. 2d 457 (1st Dept. 2017): Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that plaintiff law firm committed legal malpractice by failing to bring a timely motion for attorneys’ fees in a federal patent proceeding. Justice Singh dismissed the counterclaim, finding that the documentary evidence utterly refuted the claim that the law firm failed to make a timely motion for attorneys’ fees.
  • Bloostein v. Morrison Cohen, LLP, 2016 WL 3688463 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2016) aff’d 161 A.D.3d 546 (1st Dept. 2018): Plaintiff investors sued defendant law firm for legal malpractice with respect to an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) transaction. Defendant law firm retained a financial services company to structure plaintiff investors’ reinvestment of their ESOP proceeds. The financial services company retained the third-party defendant law firm to prepare the transaction documents, including a tax opinion letter. A misstatement in the tax letter allegedly caused the investors to incur substantial capital gains liability. Defendant law firm interposed, inter alia, a claim for contribution from the third-party defendant law firm. Justice Singh denied the motion to dismiss the contribution claim against the third-party defendant law firm on the ground that defendant had sufficiently stated that the third-party defendant’s alleged tortious conduct contributed to the injury of the plaintiff investors.
  • Lacher & Lovell-Taylor v. Chowaiki, et al., (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2013) aff’d 131 A.D.3d 898 (1st Dept. 2015): Plaintiff attorney sued its former clients for outstanding attorneys’ fees. Defendants counterclaimed for the disgorgement of all fees previously paid. Justice Singh denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissal of the counterclaims. He found that the attorney’s alleged continuous use of threats to resign in the middle of depositions and alleged misrepresentations to the client raised disputed issues of fact as to whether there was a breach of a fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty to the client.
Real Property
• • Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v. Amsterdam Avenue Redevelopment Association, LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1 (1st Dept, 2021): Justice Singh, in a unanimous opinion, held that respondent Board of Standards properly approved the construction of a new 55-story condominium, as the developer properly included partial tax lots in its declared zoning lot. The court further found that the proceeding was moot, as the building was substantially complete and petitioners failed to exercise due diligence by not seeking injunctive relief at every stage of the proceeding.
  • South Tower Residential Board of Time Warner Condominium v. The Ann Holdings, 2014 WL 769886 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2014) aff’d 127 AD3d 485 (1st Dept. 2015): Justice Singh upheld the Board of Managers’ contractual right of first refusal to convey title in connection with the sale of a condominium unit. He reasoned that the Board of Managers’ action was a proper exercise of business judgment and complied with the condominium’s bylaws.
  • CRP/Extell Parcel 1 v. Cuomo, 34 Misc. 3d 1214 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2012): Justice Singh held that a projected closing date in an offering plan was not a scrivener’s error, which required the developer to refund real estate deposits to 40 purchasers.