You are here: / ALLEGED ZONING VIOLATION DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY WARRANT REMOVAL OF TAX-EXEMPT...

Search Results

/

ALLEGED ZONING VIOLATION DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY WARRANT REMOVAL OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS; TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an alleged zoning violation, for which plaintiff property owner had never been cited, did not justify automatic removal of plaintiff's tax-exempt status. Therefore, defendant-town's motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The property had been tax-exempt for years as low-income property. The alleged zoning violation, i.e. that the plaintiff had more than two residential apartments, was not incompatible with the tax-exempt use. Therefore, the alleged zoning violation could not justify automatic removal of the tax-exempt status:

 

… [E]ven assuming that a zoning violation had been sufficiently established, the defendants have failed to articulate why such a violation, under the particular circumstances presented, should result in the loss of the plaintiff's tax exemption. Not all violations of law automatically result in the loss of a tax exemption … . “The concern of the taxing authority is not with the observance or non-observance by plaintiff of regulatory provisions relating to a specific building, but to the use to which the real property as an entity is or is intended to be devoted” … .

This is not a case in which the applicable zoning regulation is incompatible with the occupant's tax-exempt use … . In such cases, the rationale for denying the tax exemption is simple and clear, as compliance with both the tax-exempt use and the zoning regulation is impossible. Here, by contrast, the tax-exempt use of providing residential housing to low-income tenants is consonant with the property's permitted use as a two-family dwelling. Under these circumstances, the defendants have failed to establish, prima facie, that the nature of the alleged violation (i.e., that the plaintiff had more than two residential apartments) can serve as a valid legal basis for denying the property tax exemption … . Community Humanitarian Assn., Inc. v Town of Ramapo, 2016 NY Slip Op 01458, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (ALLEGED ZONING VIOLATION DID NOT WARRANT AUTOMATIC REMOVAL OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS)/ZONING (ALLEGED ZONING VIOLATION DID NOT WARRANT AUTOMATIC REMOVAL OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS)/TAX-EXEMPT STATUS (REAL PROPERTY, ALLEGED ZONING VIOLATION DID NOT WARRANT AUTOMATIC REMOVAL OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS)

/ ,

ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT WAS NOT BASED ON OFFICER’S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE; REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department determined a new trial was necessary in a pedestrian-accident case because the police report (admitted in evidence included) included a diagram of the accident scene which was not based on the police officer's personal observation:

 

Information in a police accident report is “admissible as a business record so long as the report is made based upon the officer's personal observations and while carrying out police duties” … . Conversely, information in a police accident report is inadmissible where the information came from witnesses not engaged in the police business in the course of which the memorandum was made, and the information does not qualify under some other hearsay exception … . Here, the diagram contained in the police accident report was not derived from the personal observations of the police officer, who did not witness the subject accident … . In addition, there was insufficient evidence as to the source of the information used to prepare the diagram, whether that person was under a business duty to supply it, or whether some other hearsay exception would render the diagram admissible. The diagram therefore should not have been admitted … . Wynn v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01484, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

NEGLIGENCE (ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT NOT BASED ON OFFICER'S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT NOT BASED ON OFFICER'S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/HEEARSAY (NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT NOT BASED ON OFFICER'S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)

/

GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PARTICULAR CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped on water which had dripped from the ceiling. The defendant demonstrated it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition. The court noted that a general awareness of a recurrent condition does not amount to constructive notice of the particular condition which caused the accident:

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the water in the lobby … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A general awareness of a recurring problem is insufficient, without more, to establish constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the accident … . Gurley v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01467, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE)/NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE)

/

CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED TO SUPERMARKET AND LANDOWNER.

The Second Department determined defendant supermarket (Stop & Shop) and plaza owner (Ridgeway) were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint of a customer injured when a car crashed the glass doors in the bottle-return area. The incident was deemed an unforeseeable intervening act:

 

“A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk'” … . However, a landowner does not have a “duty to protect against an occurrence which is extraordinary in nature and, as such, would not suggest itself to a reasonably careful and prudent person as one which should be guarded against” … . “There will ordinarily be no duty imposed on a defendant to prevent a third party from causing harm to another unless the intervening act which caused the plaintiff's injuries was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence” … .

Here, Stop & Shop and Ridgeway established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through an expert's affidavit, that they maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition and did not have a duty to construct and install bollards or other protective measures to protect against the conduct of the defendant driver … . Furthermore, Stop & Shop and Ridgeway established, prima facie, that the conduct of the defendant driver, in inexplicably losing control of her vehicle, was an unforeseeable intervening cause of the accident … . Stop & Shop and Ridgeway demonstrated, prima facie, that the location of the parking lot relative to the bottle return room merely furnished the condition or occasion for the accident, rather than one of its causes … . Dawkins v Mastrangelo, 2016 NY Slip Op 01459, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

NEGLIGENCE (CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT)/FORESEEABILITY (CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT)/INTERVENING ACT (CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT)

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURED’S 17-MONTH DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURER OF THE OCCURRENCE WAS BASED UPON A GOOD FAITH BELIEF OF NONLIABILITY.

The Second Department determined the insured defendants had raised a question of fact whether a 17-month delay in notifying the plaintiff insurer of the “occurrence” was based upon a good-faith belief of nonliability. The court explained the relevant law:

Where, as here, an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given “as soon as practicable,” notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances … . “However, circumstances may exist that will excuse or explain the insured's delay in giving notice, such as a reasonable belief in nonliability” … . It is the insured's burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the excuse … .

In general, whether there existed a good faith belief that the injured party would not seek to hold the insured liable, and whether that belief was reasonable, are questions of fact for the fact-finder … . Summary judgment may be granted in favor of the insurer only if the evidence, construing all inferences in favor of the insured, establishes as a matter of law that the insured's belief in nonliability was unreasonable or in bad faith … .

… The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the insured defendants were notified of the injured party's workers' compensation claim approximately 17 months before they notified the plaintiff of the occurrence … . Since the subject insurance policies were issued in 2008, prior to the amendment to Insurance Law § 3420 (for policies issued after January 17, 2009), the plaintiff did not have to show that it was prejudiced by the failure to provide timely notice in order to satisfy its prima facie burden … .

In opposition, however, the insured defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the delay was reasonably based on a good-faith belief of nonliability … . Aspen Ins. UK Ltd. v Nieto, 2016 NY Slip Op 01449, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DELAY IN NOTIFIYING INSURER BASED UPON GOOD FAITH BELIEF OF NONLIABILITY)/NOTICE OF OCCURRENCE (INSURANCE LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DELAY IN NOTIFIYING INSURER BASED UPON GOOD FAITH BELIEF OF NONLIABILITY)

/ , ,

LANDSCAPER AND ITS INSURER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; OIL LINE SEVERED DURING SPRINKLER REPAIR.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiffs in an action under the Navigation Law based upon an oil spill. The defendant landscaping company acknowledged that its employee severed the underground oil line on plaintiffs’ property while repairing a sprinkler system. Navigation Law 181 (1) imposes strict liability upon a person responsible for the discharge of petroleum and any insurer:

Navigation Law § 181(1) provides that a person who has “discharged petroleum shall be strictly liable . . . for all cleanup and removal costs and all direct and indirect damages, no matter by whom sustained.” Article 12 of the Navigation Law defines a “discharge,” as relevant here, as “any intentional or unintentional action or omission resulting in the releasing, spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping of petroleum” (Navigation Law § 172[8]). The statute provides that any individual or entity “who is not responsible for the discharge” may maintain a claim thereunder (Navigation Law § 172[3]…). The statute also provides that under article 12, “[a]ny claims for costs of cleanup and removal, civil penalties or damages by the state and any claim for damages by any injured person, may be brought directly against the bond, the insurer, or any other person providing evidence of financial responsibility” (Navigation Law § 190). Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01452, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LANDSCAPER STRICTLY LIABLE OF OIL DISCHARGE)/NAVIGATION LAW (LANDSCAPER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE)/INSURANCE LAW (INSURER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE BY INSURED)

/ ,

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY THE VILLAGE PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of an extension of time to file a notice of appearance pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 503 (B). The village’s petition for condemnation had been granted and the EDPL requires a landowner to file a notice of appearance for any claim of damages arise from the acquisition of real property. The landowners’ attorney failed to timely file the notice of appearance with the clerk of the court, but the village had been served with it. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

 

The time within which to file a written claim or notice of appearance pursuant to EDPL 503 is “merely a procedural direction to be issued by the court in the exercise of its broad discretion to administer the litigation in an orderly and expeditious manner” … . It is neither a statute of limitations nor a condition precedent to compensation and may be extended by the Supreme Court ” upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown'” … . In considering a motion for such an extension of time, “[a] court may properly consider factors such as the length of the delay, whether the opposing party has been prejudiced by the delay, the reason given for the delay, whether the moving party was in default before seeking the extension, and, if so, the presence or absence of an affidavit of merit” … .

Here, the landowners established ” good cause'” for an extension of time to file a notice of appearance … . Although the landowners’ attorney failed to properly file a notice of appearance with the clerk of the court within the timeframe set forth by the Supreme Court, the Village was nevertheless served with a notice of appearance that alerted it to the landowners’ claims. Moreover, the landowners repeatedly demanded an “advance payment” for the taking (EDPL 304), repeatedly requested that their expert appraisers be given access to the subject property in order to assess its value, and sought to exchange “written appraisal reports” (EDPL 508). In addition, after the Village had acquired the subject property, a judicial viewing of the property took place (see EDPL 510). Furthermore, the landowners demonstrated that their claim was potentially meritorious through the submission of expert evidence demonstrating that the property was worth significantly more than the amount tendered by the Village as an advance payment. Matter of Village of Haverstraw v Ray Riv. Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01500, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

 

EMINENT DOMAIN (EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: DAMAGES FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY PROPERLY GRANTED)/NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (EMINENT DOMAIN, EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: DAMAGES FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY PROPERLY GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMINENT DOMAIN, EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: DAMAGES FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY PROPERLY GRANTED)

/

MOTION TO RENEW BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE PROPERLY GRANTED; CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE.

The Second Department determined that law office failure was properly deemed an adequate ground for a motion to renew based on evidence which could have been presented to support the original motion. The Second Department further determined that, upon renewal, the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to timely file a complaint after service of the demand for a complaint was proper. The court noted the criteria for granting a motion to renew is flexible:

 

“Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts, this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion” … . What is considered a “reasonable justification” is within the Supreme Court’s discretion … . “Law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of the court’s sound discretion” … .

Here … the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to her motion, as the excuse of law office failure presented by the plaintiff was reasonable under the circumstances … .

Furthermore, upon renewal, considering all the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to serve a timely complaint. The plaintiff proffered a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving the complaint after being served by the appellant with a notice of appearance and demand for a complaint, and established that he had a potentially meritorious cause of action against the appellant … . Castor v Cuevas, 2016 NY Slip Op 01456, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR GRANTING A MOTION TO RENEW)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE)/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (MOTION TO RENEW BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE PROPERLY GRANTED)/RENEW, MOTION TO (CRITERIA FOR GRANTING IS FLEXIBLE)/RENEW, MOTION TO (LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED ADEQUATE GROUND FOR MOTION)

/

NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.

The First Department determined the defendants demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of a dangerous condition allegedly caused by tracked in rain, noting there was no obligation to continuously mop up tracked in water:

 

“The fact that it was raining and water was being tracked in does not constitute notice of a dangerous situation”; … defendants “were under no obligation . . . to continuously mop up all tracked-in water” … . Moreover, plaintiff's own testimony established that the water on which she slipped was not visible and apparent and therefore could not provide constructive notice … . Plaintiff testified that, despite looking at the floor where she was walking, it was not until after she fell that she was able to discern the wet spots on the floor, which she described as clear droplets in a small area less than two feet in diameter that were “hard to have seen . . . when I was standing up.” Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the accumulating rain water was a recurrent condition … . Gunzburg v Quality Bldg. Servs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01438, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER)/SLIP AND FALL (NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER)

/ ,

STAND-ALONE EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD REINSTATED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP ET AL.

In an action by the Attorney General against Donald Trump, alleging fraud in connection with the operation of Trump University, the First Department, overruling its own precedent, determined Executive law 63 (12) authorized a stand-alone fraud cause of action. The court further held that the three-year statute of imitations for causes of action created by statute did not apply because Executive Law 63 (12) did not create a cause of action which did not exist at common law, rather it merely authorized the Attorney General to bring a fraud cause of action. Applying the six-year statute of limitations, the First Department reinstated the Executive Law 63 (12) cause of action, and concluded questions of fact precluded summary judgment on both the statutory and common law fraud claims:

… [L]ike similar statutes that authorize causes of action, § 63(12) defines the fraudulent conduct that it prohibits, authorizes the Attorney General to commence an action or proceeding to foreclose that conduct, and specifies the relief, including equitable relief, that the Attorney General may seek. Indeed, the language of § 63(12) parallels the language of the Martin Act, under which the Attorney General is undisputedly authorized to bring a standalone cause of action for fraudulent conduct in the securities context … . * * *

… [W]e find … that the fraud claim under § 63(12) is not subject to the three-year statute of limitations imposed by CPLR 214(2), but rather, is subject to the residual six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213(1) … . … § 63(12) does not create any liability nonexistent at common law, at least under the court’s equitable powers. … § 63(12) does not encompass a significantly wider range of fraudulent activities than were legally cognizable before the section’s enactment … .

Nevertheless, petitioner is not entitled to summary determination of its fraud claims, under either the common law or the statute, because material issues of fact exist as to those claims. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. by Eric T. Schneiderman v Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01430, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

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