You are here: / / Demolition of Building Without Notice or Opportunity to Be Heard Was a...
,

Demolition of Building Without Notice or Opportunity to Be Heard Was a Proper Exercise of City’s Police Powers

The Second Department determined summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the city, based upon the city’s demolishing a building without notice or the opportunity to be heard, was properly granted:

“In the exercise of its police powers [a] municipality may demolish a building without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard if there are exigent circumstances which require immediate demolition of the building to protect the public from imminent danger” … . “[W]here there is competent evidence allowing the official to reasonably believe that an emergency does in fact exist, or that affording pre-deprivation process would be otherwise impractical, the discretionary invocation of an emergency procedure results in a constitutional violation only where such invocation is arbitrary or amounts to an abuse of discretion” … . Here, the defendant City of New York made a prima facie showing that its decision to cause the demolition of the subject building was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Iavarone v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04811, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED SHE CONTRACTED COVID AT THE WORKPLACE AND WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT INSURER DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFFS (INSUREDS) VIOLATED THE COOPERATION CLAUSE IN THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
Grant of Custody to Maternal Grandparents Rather than Parent Reversed
COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO LIMIT THE REACH OF OVERLY BROAD RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (SECOND DEPT).
Bank Did Not Demonstrate It Had Possession of the Note Prior to Commencing Foreclosure Action—Bank Did Not Have Standing to Bring the Action
Reversible Error to Allow Prosecutor to Question Defendant About His Post-Arrest Silence
FAMILY COURT’S DETERMINATION FATHER DID NOT SEXUALLY ABUSE HIS CHILD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD; THE CHILD’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS WERE CORROBORATED, AND FAMILY COURT’S DECISION TO CREDIT THE TESTIMONY OF FATHER’S EXPERT OVER PETITIONER’S EXPERT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF VIDEOTAPE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (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

Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and Fall Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff,...