Article
Source: New York Law Journal
Article
10.01.15
This article was originally published in the New York Law Journal on October 16, 2015.
In this article, we summarize significant decisions of the Appellate Division departments rendered during the summer months. We also note that Justice Luis A. Gonzalez who, having reached age 70, will be required to step down as Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, First Department, at the end of this year. He has been a judge for 30 years. During that time, he has been an associate justice of the First Department for 13 years and the presiding justice for the last six years. We wish him well.
First Department
At-Will Employment. An at-will employee can be fraudulently induced into entering into an employment contract, the First Department held in Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand.1
Steven Laduzinski alleged that he voluntarily resigned as vice-president and senior tax manager at J.P. Morgan to accept the position of senior director at Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC (A&M) because he had been promised that his role would focus on management of A&M’s “sizable” workload, rather than on business development. Yet, immediately after Laduzinski started, A&M requested that he compile a comprehensive list of his business contacts, and then terminated him after only eight months, citing a lack of work.
Laduzinski sued, claiming that A&M had fraudulently induced him into accepting the position. A&M successfully moved to dismiss, arguing that an at-will employee cannot claim reliance on an employer’s promise not to terminate the employment.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Rolando T. Acosta, the First Department reversed. Although at-will employees are not entitled to rely on representations regarding the duration or security of employment, they may assert fraudulent inducement claims if the injury alleged is “separate and distinct from termination.” Thus, an at-will employee must allege that “[he] would not have taken the job in the first place if the true facts had been revealed to [him].”
Electronic Search Warrants
Facebook cannot litigate the constitutionality of warrants on its customers’ behalf before the warrants are executed, the First Department held in Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook.2
In July 2013, the New York County District Attorney applied for 381 digital warrants to search Facebook accounts in connection with its investigation of fraudulent Social Security disability claims. Supreme Court found sufficient cause to issue the warrants, and subsequently denied Facebook’s motion to quash the warrants prior to execution.
Read More: Appellate Division Review