You are here: / / THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE...
,

THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the NYC Water Board was a necessary party in the Article 78 contesting the Board’s ruling on sewer charges. The Article 78 named only the NYC Department of Environmental Protection:

… [T]he appellants correctly contend that the Water Board should be joined as a necessary party to this proceeding. “Persons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants” (CPLR 1001[a]). In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the governmental agency which performed the challenged action must be a named party … . Since the instant petition challenged the Water Board’s … final determination, and the Water Board is the entity which promulgates the rate schedule of sewer rents and wastewater allowances … in the discharge of its duties to fix and collect water and sewer charges in order for the City to maintain the water system … , the Water Board was a necessary party to this proceeding. Indeed, the Water Board would be prejudiced by the judgment purporting to bind its rights when it had no opportunity to be heard … . … [B]ecause the Water Board should have been joined in this action and has not been made a party, and because it is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the judgment must be vacated, and the Supreme Court should order the Water Board summoned in this proceeding so that it may be heard (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Matter of A&F Scaccia Realty Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2021 NY Slip Op 06995, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED ON ROSIN PAPER WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE STEPS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
Defendant Demonstrated It Did Not Have Constructive Notice of Condition Which Caused the Fall—Law of Constructive Notice Explained Re: Recurring Conditions/Latent Defects
Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
HERE NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO THE TOWN FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE AND GATE WAS MAILED TO PETITIONER; PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION THE NOTICE ARRIVED FIVE DAYS AFTER IT WAS MAILED; THEREFORE PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Terms of Appellate Court’s Remittitur Must Be Strictly Followed
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WAS 17 AND HAD A LONG STANDING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO DETERMINE PATERNITY; THE CHILD WAS AWARE FROM A YOUNG AGE THAT THE PUTATIVE FATHER WAS THE CHILD’S BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE PATERNITY PETITION WAS NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
VERDICT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG BIT PLAINTIFF’S FACE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BITE THE FOOD IN PLAINTIFF’S HAND AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG ONLY BECAME RAMBUNCTIOUS AROUND FOOD SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOG HAD NOT EXHIBITED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES (SECOND DEPT).

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

THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE... THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT STORE SHOULD HAVE...