Immunity – Page 9 – New York Appellate Digest

Immunity, Mental Hygiene Law, Negligence

OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD.

The Third Department determined claimant’s negligence suit against the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) was properly dismissed because the OMRDD’s oversight of private companies providing care to the developmentally disabled was a government function and there was no special relationship with the resident, claimant’s daughter. Therefore the state was immune from suti. Claimant alleged the resident was abused while in the care of Camary Statewide Services, a private, nonprofit corporation that was, at that time, certified by the OMRDD:

OMRDD conducted annual or biannual reviews, which included a sampling of records and interviews of staff members and residents, to determine whether Camary continued to be eligible for an operating certificate to provide care and treatment to developmentally disabled individuals … . Where noncompliance was discovered, OMRDD could require private service providers to take corrective measures to address the deficiency or, where the noncompliance was severe, revoke, suspend or limit the service provider’s operating certificate … . In the event of noncompliance, OMRDD would provide guidance to the service provider, but it would not take affirmative steps to bring the provider into compliance with the applicable regulations. Moreover, OMRDD’s oversight over, and regulation of, Camary was plainly undertaken to further the general goal of protecting the health and safety of persons with developmental disabilities. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the actions, or inactions, in question were governmental in nature … . * * *

… [C]laimant argues that the requisite special relationship was formed by OMRDD’s violation of Mental Hygiene Law former § 13.07 (c) … , as well as the reporting rules in 14 NYCRR former part 624 … . As relevant here, Mental Hygiene Law former § 13.07 (c) … charged OMRDD with ensuring that the care and treatment provided to persons with developmental disabilities were of high quality and that the personal and civil rights of persons receiving such care and treatment were protected. As for the reporting rules, OMRDD promulgated detailed regulations requiring that reportable incidents, which included instances in which a resident sustained an injury requiring more than first aid, be recorded and investigated by the service provider under a defined procedure, subject to review by OMRDD. Undoubtedly, these statutory and regulatory provisions were enacted for the benefit of persons with developmental disabilities, a class within which the resident certainly falls.

However, no private right of action is expressly created by the implementing statute and the relevant regulations and, contrary to claimant’s contentions, one may not be fairly implied. T.T. v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04940, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/IMMUNITY (OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (IMMUNITY, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, IMMUNITY, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)

June 15, 2017

Contract Law, Immunity, Indian Law

CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the choice law provisions in a contract between plaintiff and defendant Unkechaug Indian Nation did not include a clear-cut waiver of sovereign immunity and must be construed against the drafter, the plaintiff here. Therefore the defendant was immune from suit for breach of contract:

Here, the plaintiff contends that the defendant waived its sovereign immunity by virtue of a choice-of-law provision stating that the contract would be governed by the laws of New York, and by the following provision of the contract:

“[The] parties agree that any claim or controversy regarding this Contract shall be most conveniently and economically resolved in Suffolk County, New York, and therefore, the parties agree that any claim or action brought for enforcement, interpretation or damages under this Contract shall be brought only in Suffolk County and the parties agree to forebear from filing a claim in any other jurisdiction.”

Although this clause requires “any claim or controversy” regarding the contract to be resolved in Suffolk County, it does not require that such claim or controversy be resolved by a state court. Rather, under the clause, a party could bring a claim before a mediator, an arbitrator, a tribal court, a state court, or a federal court, as long as the selected forum was located in Suffolk County. Thus, unlike the cases involving arbitration clauses, this clause does not unequivocally express the defendant’s agreement to be sued in a state court. …

The fact that the contract also includes a choice-of-law provision does not resolve the ambiguity in the subject clause, since the law of the State of New York could be applied in other forums besides a state or federal court to interpret the contract … . Aron Sec., Inc. v Unkechaug Indian Nation, 2017 NY Slip Op 04413, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

INDIAN LAW (SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/CONTRACT LAW (SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/IMMUNITY (INDIAN NATION, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (INDIAN NATION, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)

June 7, 2017

Immunity, Municipal Law, Negligence

STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS.

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a state trooper, defendant Begeal, was entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case because he was immune from suit for his actions, which were discretionary. Plaintiff physician assistant was injured by a patient (Lacey) brought into the hospital by law enforcement officers, including Begeal. Plaintiff was kicked by the patient and alleged Begeal negligently failed to restrain the patient’s legs:

Although Begeal had access to plastic leg restraints, the undisputed evidence established that, at the time that he left the examination room, Lacey was still handcuffed, was “extremely calm” and had allowed a nurse to remove pieces of glass from his feet without kicking or otherwise resisting the nurse’s efforts. Begeal thus made a “reasoned judgment” not to utilize the leg restraints … . Accordingly, “[t]he decision to employ [only handcuffs] was a discretionary one . . ., and [Begeal] may not be held liable for that determination” … . …

Begeal’s decision to leave the examination room to permit the medical personnel to examine Lacey in private was likewise discretionary. Although Lacey was combative when he first arrived at the hospital, Begeal did not leave the examination room until approximately 20 minutes after that time and only after ensuring that Lacey had calmed down. Based on these circumstances, Begeal “did not feel that [the hospital personnel and Feeney] were in any immediate danger” and concluded that he could safely leave the room and go to the main area in order to, among other things, wash off Lacey’s blood from his clothes. While Begeal’s judgment call proved to be incorrect, “it is not for courts to second-guess the wisdom of discretionary governmental choices, troubling though they may sometimes seem in the glaring clarity of hindsight” … . Feeney v County of Del., 2017 NY Slip Op 03583, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

NEGLIGENCE (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)

May 4, 2017

Civil Procedure, Civil Rights Law, Immunity, Municipal Law

HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the defendant city’s motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law should have been granted (criteria explained). Plaintiff, a 72-year-old woman (who was not named in the search warrant) was handcuffed while the police searched her house. Plaintiff alleged she suffered anxiety-related symptoms but no physical injury. Only the excessive force cause of action went to the jury. The Second Department held that physical injury, not emotional injury, was required, and further held that qualified immunity applied to the act of placing her in handcuffs (which was deemed reasonable):

Here, although the plaintiff did not resist or attempt to flee, the actions of the officers were reasonable given that they had reason to believe that illegal drugs were being sold from the premises, and that a known drug dealer might be present. Under the circumstances, where the police were executing a search warrant to find illegal drugs and did not know who they might encounter or whether any occupants of the house might have weapons, it was reasonable for them to handcuff the plaintiff for a few minutes until they determined that she was not a threat, notwithstanding her age at the time of the incident. …

Furthermore, a plaintiff must have sustained some injury to maintain a claim of excessive force, although that injury need not be severe … . Emotional pain and suffering cannot form the basis of an excessive force claim … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that she sustained any injury that resulted from the act of handcuffing her … . Boyd v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02619, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (18 USC 1983) (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITYS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/IMMUNITY (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/POLICE (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EXCESSIVE FORCE (POLICE, HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

April 5, 2017

Court of Claims, Immunity, Negligence

CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Second Department determined the claim alleging negligent highway design was properly dismissed after trial:

“[A] municipality owes to the public the absolute duty of keeping its streets in a reasonably safe condition” … . However, “in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Under the qualified immunity doctrine, liability may arise where there is proof that the State’s traffic design plan “evolved without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis” … . Moreover, “something more than a mere choice between conflicting opinions of experts is required before the State . . . may be charged with a failure to discharge its duty to plan highways for the safety of the traveling public” … .

Here, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim based upon the evidence the State submitted at trial, which showed that the design and placement of the guardrail were the result of a deliberate decision-making process after an adequate study and had a reasonable basis … . Gagliardi v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01845, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

COURT OF CLAIMS (CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (HIGHWAY DESIGN, CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/NEGLIGENCE (HIGHWAY DESIGN, CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/HIGWAYS AND ROADS (CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/GUARDRAILS (CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

March 15, 2017

Civil Procedure, Immunity, Negligence

CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined damages could not be apportioned against the (non-party) state in a negligence action in Supreme Court. The plaintiffs alleged a tree branch fell on plaintiffs’ car as plaintiffs were driving on a public street. The plaintiffs sued the property owner, but also filed a claim against the state alleging the state was negligent. The state can only be sued in the Court of Claims. Although, by statute (CPLR 1601], damages can be apportioned against a non-party defendant in the Court of Claims, the Court of Appeals held the statute does not allow damages to be apportioned against the non-party state in Supreme Court:

The statutory language permitting the State to seek apportionment in the Court of Claims against a private defendant if the claimant could have sued that defendant in any court of this State was specifically requested by the office of the Attorney General … . Pursuant to that language, as long as a claimant in the Court of Claims could have commenced an action against a private tortfeasor in any court in the State of New York, then the tortfeasor’s culpable conduct can be considered by the Court of Claims in determining the State’s equitable share of the total liability … . The statute does not, however, contain similar, express enabling language to allow apportionment against the state in a Supreme Court action … .

Plaintiffs, along with the State, argue that the inclusion of unambiguous language permitting the Court of Claims to consider the liability of a nonparty tortfeasor — while, at the same time, omitting language to allow the factfinder in Supreme Court to consider the liability of the State — demonstrates the Legislature’s intent not to allow apportionment of the State’s liability in Supreme Court. Moreover, even apart from the absence of language permitting apportionment against the State in Supreme Court, CPLR 1601 (1) provides that a nonparty tortfeasor’s relative culpability must not be considered in apportioning fault “if the claimant . . . with due diligence . . . was unable to obtain jurisdiction over such person in said action” … . Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01145, CtApp 2-14-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/IMMUNITY (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)

February 14, 2017

Immunity, Municipal Law

COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined the county was immune from suit by a student who was assaulted by a worker at a county-owned facility. The worker was referred to the lessee of the premises, the North Amityville Community Economic Council (NACEC), as part of a welfare to work program. NACEC only accepted referrals for persons with no criminal record. The Suffolk County Department of Labor (SWEP) referred the worker despite knowledge of his status as a level three sex offender. The court determined the county was acting in its governmental, not proprietary, capacity when it referred the worker and there was no special relationship between the county and the victim of the assault:

In this case, the specific act or omission that caused plaintiff’s injury was the County’s referral of Smith to NACEC through the County’s SWEP program, a referral made in spite of NACEC’s caveat that it would not accept candidates with a criminal record. The administration of SWEP … was quintessentially a governmental role. The County’s conduct in referring Smith was undertaken solely in connection with its administration of that program and was part of the County’s fundamental governmental activity. Therefore, we hold that the County was acting in its governmental capacity when it referred Smith to NACEC. * * *

There is no view of the evidence that could allow one to conclude that the County voluntarily assumed a special duty to plaintiff. Even if the County promised that it would not refer anyone with a criminal background, that promise would have been made only to NACEC and there is no evidence that plaintiff ever had any knowledge of NACEC’s request. In addition, … it is undisputed that there was no direct contact between plaintiff and the County. Tara N.P. v Western Suffolk Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 01255, CtApp 2-16-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)

February 13, 2017

Contract Law, Immunity, Municipal Law, Negligence

COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION.

The Second Department determined the county was not entitled to summary judgment on governmental immunity grounds and an independent contractor for the county was not entitled to summary judgment because of the contractual relationship. Plaintiffs alleged the county and the contractor were negligent in dredging a pond resulting in flood damage. The county could be liable in ordinary negligence for maintenance of the drainage system (as opposed to design) and the subcontractor could be liable for launching an instrument of harm:

Although a governmental entity may be entitled to immunity from liability arising out of claims that it negligently designed a sewerage or storm drainage system … , the immunity does not extend to claims that it negligently maintained the system … . Here, even assuming the subject project fell within the ambit of a governmental function, the plaintiffs contend that the County was negligent, inter alia, in its maintenance of the pond and oversight of the dredging operations. * * *

Generally, an independent contractor owes no tort duty of care to third parties … . However, there are “three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons … where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm … . Nachamie v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 00657, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM, FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION)/NEGLIGENCE (COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM, FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM, FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION)/CONTRACT LAW (INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM, FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION)

February 1, 2017

Civil Rights Law, Immunity, Municipal Law, Real Property Tax Law

TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD.

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to be fairly summarized here, determined a town board of assessment review (BAR) is a quasi-judicial body and is therefore entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Third Department further determined that causes of actions for civil rights violations (42 USC 1983) against two town assessors individually (stemming from allegedly discriminatory property tax assessments) can go forward:

Consistent with the provisions of RPTL 523, the Town was required to have a board of assessment review (see RPTL 523 [1] [a]), and its individual members, in turn, were required to attend mandated training (see RPTL 523 [1] [d]; [2]). Here, in accordance with its appointed duties, the BAR had a statutory obligation to “fix the place or places for the hearing of complaints in relation to assessments” (RPTL 525 [1]) and, on the date required by law, to “meet to hear complaints in relation to assessments” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]). Upon convening for the required hearing, the BAR could “administer oaths, take testimony and hear proofs in regard to any complaint and the assessment to which it relates” and, further, could “require the person whose real property is assessed, or his or her agent or representative, or any other person, to appear before [it] and be examined concerning such complaint, and to produce any papers relating to such assessment” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]). “Minutes of the examination of every person [so] examined” were required to “be taken and filed in the office of the . . . town clerk” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]), and the BAR thereafter was required to “determine the final assessed valuation or taxable assessed valuation . . . of the real property of each complainant” (RPTL 525 [3] [a]), “prepare and verify a statement showing the changes determined to be made by them in the assessments” and notify each complainant of its determination and the time within which to seek judicial review thereof (RPTL 525 [4]). In light of these statutory mandates, it is apparent that the BAR’s determinations constitute decisions of a quasi-judicial nature and, hence, the BAR (and its individual members) are entitled to absolute immunity … . * * *

… [S]uffice it to say that [defendants town assessors’] proof … fell short of establishing that the assessors valued plaintiff’s property in a nondiscriminatory fashion and, therefore, defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment [on the violation of civil rights causes of action]. Corvetti v Town of Lake Pleasant, 2017 NY Slip Op 00227, 3rd Dept 1-12-17

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/MUNICIPAL LAW (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/IMMUNITY (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/CIVIL RIGHTS (42 USC 1983) (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/42 USC 1983 (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)

January 12, 2017

Defamation, Immunity, Municipal Law

COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Third Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, determined several statements in this defamation action were not merely opinions and were therefore actionable against the defendant who made the statements in a letter to town officials. The republication of the defamatory statements as well as other statements by town officials were entitled to either absolute privilege or qualified immunity. The decision includes substantive discussions of the elements of defamation, opinion versus fact, mixed opinion and fact, absolute immunity and qualified immunity, which cannot be fairly summarized here. With regard to (actionable) fact versus (nonactionable) opinion, the court explained:

It is well settled that, “[s]ince falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts are capable of being proven false, only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action” … . “Distinguishing actionable fact from a protected expression of opinion is a question of law in which several factors are weighed, including whether the allegedly defamatory words have a precise meaning that is readily understood, whether the statement can be proven as true or false, and whether the context and surrounding circumstances would indicate that the comment is an opinion” … .

While a pure expression of opinion is not actionable, a “mixed opinion” — i.e., one that “‘implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it'” — can be the subject of a defamation claim … . “Rather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact,” we must “look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made and determine on that basis whether the reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the plaintiff” … . Hull v Town of Prattsville, 2016 NY Slip Op 08917, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

DEFAMATION (COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DEFAMATION, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

December 29, 2016