You are here: / LOCAL LAW REVISING ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALLOWING MINING WAS VALIDLY ENACTED;...

Search Results

/ , , , ,

LOCAL LAW REVISING ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALLOWING MINING WAS VALIDLY ENACTED; CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S FINDING, TWO PETITIONERS HAD STANDING BY VIRTUE OF THEIR OWNING PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE NEW ZONING PROVISIONS; ONE PORTION OF THE LOCAL LAW USURPED THE POWERS OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) AND WAS ANNULLED; ANOTHER PORTION ADDRESSING TRUCK TRAFFIC VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a comprehensive and detailed decision which can not be fairly summarized here, determined a local law which included and new zoning map, revised zoning districts and allowed mining on properties with existing permits was validly enacted. Disagreeing with Supreme Court, the Third Department noted that two of the petitioners, Holser and Hastings, had standing to challenge the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review by virtue of owning property subject to the rezoning ordinance. The court found that one section of the Local Law usurped powers reserved under SEQRA requiring annulment of that section. The court found that another paragraph of the Local Law prohibiting the transport of minerals on town roads did not carve out exceptions for deliveries as required by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. With respect to the standing issue, the court wrote:

For purposes of standing, when a property owner challenges the SEQRA review process undertaken in conjunction with a zoning enactment to which its property is subject, “ownership of the subject property confers a legally cognizable interest in being assured that the Town satisfied SEQRA before taking action to rezone its land”  … . “[S]tanding should be liberally constructed so that land use disputes are settled on their own merits rather than by preclusive, restrictive standing rules. To that end, the allegations contained in a petition are deemed to be true and are construed in the light most favorable to the petitioner” … . Holser and Hastings have demonstrated that they reside in the Town and own property therein. It is not necessary to assert “proof of special damage or in-fact injury” … , nor do they have to state a noneconomic environmental harm. All that is necessary for standing is to demonstrate ownership of property subject to the rezoning ordinance … . Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Town of Sand Lake, 2020 NY Slip Op 04212, Thrid Dept 7-23-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT ARGUED THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH REPRESENTED THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE UNFAIRLY APPORTIONED THE PAYMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THEM SUCH THAT THE NON-NEGLIGENT, VICARIOUSLY LIABLE PARTY PAID $2 MILLION, AND THE NEGLIGENT PARTY PAID $200,000; AFTER INDEMNIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 MILLION DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY THE NEGLIGENT PARTY; THE ATTEMPT WAS REJECTED UNDER BOTH CONTRACTUAL AND COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION THEORIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence, determined Lamela & Sons, Inc. (Lamela), the employer of plaintiffs James and Robert Lamela, was required to indemnify the property owner, Satin, for Satin’s portion of the $3.2 million settlement in this construction accident case. The settlement agreement required payment of $2,199,999 by Satin and Verticon, the general contractor. Lamela paid Satin $2 million in satisfaction of its contractual indemnity obligation to Satin. The insurance company which represented both Verticon and Satin apportioned a larger portion of the settlement to Satin, which was not negligent but was vicariously liable, and a lesser portion to Verticon, which was negligent. Lamela argued that a larger portion of the settlement should have been apportioned to the negligent party, Verticon. Lamela’s indemnity obligation to Satin, therefore, should have been less. On that basis, Lamela sought indemnity from Verticon. Lamela’s argument was rejected:

Verticon submitted the construction contract … between Verticon and Lamela, which provides for indemnity flowing from Lamela to Verticon, specifically stating, “To the fullest extent permitted by law, [Lamela] shall indemnify, defend and save harmless [Verticon] . . . against any and all suits [or] actions . . . arising from the use or operation by [Lamela] of construction equipment, tools, scaffolding or facilities furnished to [Lamela] to perform the [w]ork.” The provision, as expected, does not provide for indemnification flowing the other way, from Verticon to Lamela, as is being sought by Lamela. Thus, as “the subject of indemnification [is] clearly contemplated and expressly addressed by [Lamela and Verticon] in their contract, . . . there [can] only be a one-way obligation to indemnify by [Lamela] as the indemnitor, and any reciprocal obligation is extinguished” … . * * *

… .[C]ommon-law indemnity is not the appropriate relief here because Lamela is not responsible by operation of law … ; rather, its payment to Satin was based solely upon a voluntarily assumed obligation that it undertook by virtue of the contract. There has been no case cited that permits common-law indemnity under this scenario. Although we are mindful that Lamela’s motivation for seeking common-law indemnity stems from its concern that the settlement was unfairly apportioned, to attempt to remedy this by way of common-law indemnity is unavailing. Lamela v Verticon, Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 04214, Third Dept 7-23-20

 

/ , , ,

THE 2009 ROBERTS CASE APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGES STEMMING FROM THE RENTAL OF DEREGULATED APARTMENTS BY LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS; THE OVERCHARGES HERE MUST BE RE-CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RECENT RULING BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE CLASS OF TENANTS IN THIS RENT OVERCHARGE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED BY SUPREME COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined: (1) Roberts v Thishman, 13 NY3d 270 applies retroactively to landlords who rent deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits; (2) the class of tenants bringing the rent-overcharge action should not have been expanded by Supreme Court; and (3) Supreme Court must re-calculate the rent overcharges in accordance with the recent Court of Appeals ruling in Matter of Regina, 2020 NYSlipOp 02127:

In Gersten v 56 7th Ave. LLC (88 AD3d 189, 198 [1st Dept 2011]), this Court held that Roberts should be applied retroactively because the decision simply interpreted a statute that had been in effect for a number of years, and did not establish a new principle of law.  * * *

In Matter of Regina … , the Court of Appeals determined that “the overcharge calculation amendments [in the HSTPA (HousiNg Stability and Tenant Protection Act)] cannot be applied retroactively to overcharges that occurred prior to their enactment.” The Court also resolved a split in this Department as to what rent records can be reviewed to determine rents and overcharges in Roberts cases … . Regina concluded that “under pre-HSTPA law, the four-year lookback rule and standard method of calculating legal regulated rent govern in Roberts overcharge cases, absent fraud” … .Accordingly, we … remand the matter for the court to set forth a methodology consistent with the Rent Stabilization Law as interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Regina. …

… [T]he motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in expanding the class. The court’s order failed to analyze whether class action status was warranted based on the criteria set forth in CPLR 901 and CPLR 902. Conducting that analysis ourselves, we find that the redefined class represents such a fundamental change in the theory of plaintiffs’ case that expansion of the class would be improper. Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 2020 NY Slip Op 04239, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/ ,

THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE A FEE DISPUTE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHEN THE LEGAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRECLUDES THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, in a matter of first impression, determined plaintiff-attorney’s failure to timely notify defendant-client of the right to arbitrate a fee dispute required dismissal of the attorney’s action seeking attorney’s fees. The Committee on Fee Disputes and Conciliation (Committee) can not hear fee disputes more that two years after legal services were rendered. Plaintiff-attorney did not notify defendant within two years and the Committee refused to hold the arbitration on that ground:

22 NYCRR 137 gives clients the right to demand arbitration of any fee dispute in an amount between $1,000 and $50,000 (22 NYCRR 137.1[b][2]). The failure of an attorney to participate in fee arbitration is a violation of the ethical rules (Rules of Professional Conduct 22 NYCRR 1200.00) rule 1.4; (see 22 NYCRR 137.11). 137.1 sets out the limitations on the disputes that will be heard by the Committee. This includes matters outside the dollar range, claims inextricably intertwined with malpractice claims, and as relevant here, claims where no legal services have been performed in the prior two years (22 NYCRR 137.1[b][6]). …

Fee arbitration is mandatory if requested by a client or a former client. It is a right of the client. Where, as in this case, an attorney, through their own delay deprives the client of that right, the attorney cannot in good faith claim compliance with the procedures of Part 137. Not only would this effectively give counsel the option of whether to arbitrate, because counsel could control whether the dispute began in two years or less, it would also be directly contrary to the rules, which provide that it is the client’s choice. Filemyr v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 04238, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ INSURER OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (BY DEFAULT) THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE, UNDER EITHER CLAIM OR ISSUE PRECLUSION, PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, after a comprehensive analysis of res judicata and collateral estoppel, refusing to follow the Second Department, determined a default judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought against plaintiff by defendant driver/owner’s insurer (Nationwide) did not preclude plaintiff’s subsequent personal injury action against defendants. Plaintiff alleged he was walking his motorcycle across a street when he was struct by defendants’ vehicle. Nationwide brought the declaratory judgment action to obtain a ruling it was not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff and plaintiff did not appear in that action:

Claim preclusion prevents relitigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions that either were raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding … . As the Court of Appeals has stressed, this “identity” requirement is a “linchpin of res judicata,” which applies “only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion'” … . Stated differently, the “doctrine of res judicata only bars additional actions between the same parties on the same claims based upon the same harm” … . …

Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action … . Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action … . There is a limit to the reach of issue preclusion, however. In accordance with due process, it can be asserted only against a party to the first lawsuit, or one in privity with a party … .

… .”An issue is not actually litigated” for collateral estoppel purposes “if, for example, there has been a default” … . …

Claim preclusion cannot apply here, because plaintiff and defendants are litigating a claim against each other for the first time. * * * Defendants’ rights to be defended and indemnified by Nationwide remained intact regardless of the outcome of the no-fault benefits dispute. Rojas v Romanoff, 2020 NY Slip Op 04237, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/ ,

THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELEASE FROM RIKERS ISLAND BASED UPON THE RISK OF CONTRACTING COVID-19 PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the petitions for writs of habeas corpus brought by inmates at Rikers Island, arguing the risk of contracting COVID-19 at the jail required release, were properly denied. State and Federal constitutional arguments were raised. The analysis, which is too complex to fairly summarize here, came down to weighing the danger to the inmates against the danger to the public entailed by release:

Far from acting recklessly, respondents [city and state] have demonstrated great care to ensure the safety of everyone who enters the facility. By any objective measure, they have been anything but indifferent to the risk that COVID-19 poses to the jail population.

Even petitioners admit that respondents have taken substantial measures to reduce the spread of the virus on Rikers Island, and have had success in doing so. Moreover, petitioners have not cited to any controlling authority to establish that anything short of release constitutes deliberate indifference. …

That the State has agreed to release a significant number of detainees to help control the spread of the virus actually demonstrates that it has given a great deal of consideration to who should and should not be released, and its decision not to release petitioners based on their criminal history backgrounds is thus persuasive. Coupled with what the State and City have done to protect detainees, discussed above, we conclude that the weighing of interests falls in respondents’ favor. Matter of People ex rel. Stoughton v Brann, 2020 NY Slip Op 04236, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/ , ,

CITY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING ITS EFFECTS ON RENTER DISPLACEMENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, ruled that the City Council, in approving the redevelopment plan, had taken the requisite hard look pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQRA) at the environmental impacts of the plan as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS):

Petitioners argued that the City violated SEQRA and CEQR by failing to take a “hard look” at eight issues: (1) impact of rezoning on existing preferential rents and effect on renter displacement; (2) impact on area racial makeup; (3) impact on minority and women-owned businesses (MWBEs); (4) accuracy of prior City FEIS projections on rezoning impacts; (5) impact of loss of the existing Inwood library; (6) impact on emergency response times; (7) cumulative impact of other potential area rezonings, including the adjacent 40-acre MTA railyard; and (8) speculative purchase of residential buildings in the wake of the rezoning. …

We find that the City’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidence, or contrary to law. The City took the requisite “hard look” at all the issues requiring study under SEQRA/CEQR … , but did not have to parse every sub-issue as framed by petitioners … . Moreover, the City was “entitled to rely on the accepted methodology set forth in the [CEQR] Technical Manual” … , including in determining what issues were beyond the scope of SEQRA/CEQR review. Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04235, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/

BECAUSE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS OF THE INITIAL CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE WERE INVALIDATED, THE PETITION TO VALIDATE CERTIFICATES OF SUBSTITUTION FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to validate certificates of substitution for a candidate (Sammut) for State Senate after the designating petitions of the initial candidate (LaLota) were invalidated should not have been granted. Because there was no valid designating petition, substitution was barred:

“[P]ursuant to Election Law § 6-148(1), a valid designating petition is a prerequisite to the creation of a vacancy” … . Where a designating petition is ” invalid,'” another candidate may not be substituted by a committee to fill vacancies … . On the prior appeal, we specifically granted the appellants’ petition to invalidate LaLota’s designating petitions. * * *

Moreover, Election Law § 3-200(6) provides: “An election commissioner shall not be a candidate for any elective office which he [or she] would not be entitled to hold under the provisions of [Election Law article 3], unless he [or she] has ceased by resignation or otherwise, to be commissioner prior to his [or her] nomination or designation therefor. Otherwise such nomination or designation shall be null and void” … . Where an original nomination or designation is void, no vacancy is created which can be filled by substitution … .  Matter of Ferrandino v Sammut, 2020 NY Slip Op 04229, Second Dept 7-23-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE GRANTED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON COVENIENS GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the failure to serve defendant (Bryan) should have been denied and plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendants (Bryan and Carroll) should have been granted. However the action was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds:

… [T]he plaintiff promptly sought an extension after Bryan challenged the court’s jurisdiction, the respective insurance carriers for Bryan and Carroll had actual notice of this action within 120 days of its commencement, there was evidence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to Bryan and Carroll … . Accordingly, that branch of the respondents’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Bryan must be denied, and the plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve both Bryan and Carroll must be granted.

However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of forum non conveniens. In granting that branch of the respondents’ motion, the court properly considered all the relevant factors … , including that the plaintiff and the respondents are residents of New Jersey, Carroll was also a resident of New Jersey at the time of the accident, Bryan’s insurance policy was issued in New Jersey, and both vehicles involved in the accident were registered in New Jersey … . The fact that the accident occurred in New York is insufficient by itself to provide the substantial nexus required to warrant the retention of jurisdiction in the State of New York … . Considering all of the relevant factors, including the fact that the plaintiff primarily received medical treatment for her alleged injuries in New Jersey, we find no basis to disturb the court’s determination to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against the respondents on forum non conveniens grounds … . DelGrosso v Carroll, 2020 NY Slip Op 04148, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

/ ,

THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant abutting property owner demonstrated it was not responsible for the repair of any alleged defects in the public sidewalk in this slip and fall case. The city code imposed liability only if the landowner was notified of the need for repair:

Section 167-50(A) of the Code of the City of Rye provides that “[i]t shall be the duty of the Department of Public Works to require the owner of property abutting upon a street to repair or replace any sidewalk in front thereof that is required to be repaired or replaced,” and “[w]here the owner of such property shall fail to neglect to repair or replace such sidewalk for five days after notice to do so has been served upon the owner . . . the Department of Public Works shall repair or replace such sidewalk, and a statement of 100% of the cost incurred thereby shall be served upon the owner.” Section 167-50(B) imposes tort liability upon landowners for injuries resulting “from the failure of any owner or other responsible person to comply with the provisions of this section.” … [Defendants] established [they did not receive] notice from the Department of Public Works requiring them to perform sidewalk repairs. Accordingly, the … defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they had no statutory duty to repair the sidewalk …  The … defendants’ submissions also demonstrated, prima facie, that … the … defendants [did not create] the defective condition that allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s fall … . DeBorba v City of Rye, 2020 NY Slip Op 04147, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

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