You are here: / Municipal Law
,

THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE RULE RE: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST SURFACE DEFECTS; HERE THE RULE APPLIED TO AN ARCH-SHAPED BOLLARD OR BARRIER WHICH FELL OVER WHEN A CHILD WAS SWINGING FROM IT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming the dismissal of the complaint, over a two-justice dissent, determined the “written notice” requirement in the City of Ithaca code applied to an arch-shaped bollard or barrier placed to protect a tree from being damaged by cars using a parking lot. As plaintiff’s child grabbed onto the bollard and swung from it, it came loose from the ground and fell over, injuring the child’s hand. The city demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition, which, under the code, is a prerequisite for liability. The dissenters argued a bollard was not in any category which triggers the written-notice requirement:

… [T]he operative query is not whether there is a surface defect affecting safe passage but, more broadly, whether there is a defective condition that would not have come to the municipality’s attention unless it was notified of it … . As such, the prior written notice rule has been applied to conditions as varied as a low-hanging tree branch …, a sharp metal beam … and a bent parking meter pole … . Therefore, the prior written notice rule governs.

From the Dissent:

First, in our opinion, the defective bollard that crushed plaintiff’s child’s hand was not in one of the six locations that General Municipal Law § 50-e authorizes municipalities to cover with a prior written notice law. And second, defendants failed to submit any proof that they installed the bollard properly, in accordance with industry standards. Thus, the burden never shifted to plaintiff, and defendants’ summary judgment motion should have been denied regardless of the adequacy of plaintiff’s proof. Finally, even if defendants had shifted the burden, we believe that plaintiff submitted proof presenting a question of fact as to whether the bollard was unreasonably dangerous when installed, precluding a grant of summary judgment. Gurbanova v City of Ithaca, 2025 NY Slip Op 00252, Third Dept 1-16-25

Practice Point: The written-notice rule, which requires that a municipality have written notice of a dangerous condition before it can be held liable for injury caused by the condition, applies to more than just surface defects. Here the rule applied to an arch-shaped bollard or barrier which fell over when a child swung on it.

 

, ,

THE TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF THE CITY, NOT DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined that maintenance of the tree well within the sidewalk where plaintiff fell was the responsibility of the city, not the defendant property owner:

Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting plaintiff’s pleadings and deposition testimony, along with photographic evidence showing the area where the sidewalk connects to the tree well and marked by plaintiff at her deposition to show where she fell. This evidence, taken together, establishes that plaintiff fell when she stepped into and out of the perimeter of the tree well, not when she stepped on an uneven sidewalk slab or other sidewalk defect … . The perimeter of the tree well is not part of the sidewalk whose maintenance is the responsibility of the abutting property owner under Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 … . Rather, the perimeter of the tree well is part of the tree well itself, which the City, not the property owner responsible for the sidewalk, has the obligation to maintain in a safe condition … .

Defendant also submitted an affidavit and deposition testimony from one of its owners, stating that the tree wells near the property were installed by the City and that neither defendant nor any building tenant constructed the tree well, maintained it, repaired it, or put it to special use. This evidence was sufficient to show that defendant did not affirmatively create the dangerous condition, negligently make repairs to the area, or cause the dangerous condition to occur through a special use of the area. Thus, there was no basis to impose liability on the defendant … . Cabral v Triangle, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00187, First Dept 1-14-25

Practice Point: In NYC tree wells, as opposed to the surrounding sidewalks, are the responsibility of the city, not the abutting property owner. Here plaintiff tripped and fell stepping into a tree well. Defendant abutting property owner was off-the-hook.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN A GUARDED DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT AND IN A LOCKED BATHROOM IN THE JAIL; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL, NOT A PROPRIETARY, FUNCTION (PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE PARKING LOT AND JAIL), PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY OWED HIM A SPECIAL DUTY, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO DO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence action against the county in this Child Victims Act case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant Weis, a corrections officer employed by defendant Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, sexually abused him in a guarded parking lot at the Sheriff’s Department and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department held that the alleged negligence related to a governmental function, not a proprietary function of the Sheriff’s Department, requiring plaintiff to demonstrate he was owed a “special duty:”

… [T]he specific acts or omissions that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries were the defendant’s decisions regarding the level of security and surveillance to provide in a fenced-in jail parking lot, with admission controlled by a posted guard, or within the facility itself. Those decisions go beyond the scope of the defendant’s duty as a landlord and constitute actions undertaken in the defendant’s police protection capacity … . Accordingly, the specific acts or omissions at issue here involved a governmental function.

… [B]ecause the defendant was engaged in a governmental function, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the municipality owed him a “special duty” … . A special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted” or “the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally” … . Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Neary v Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 00105, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: It is not easy to determine whether a governmental entity is engaged in a governmental function or a proprietary function at the time of an alleged negligent act or omission. Here plaintiff alleged abuse by a Sheriff’s Department employee in the guarded department parking lot and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department deemed the security of the parking lot and the jail a governmental function (acting as a landlord) and held the county could not be liable unless it owed plaintiff a ‘special duty.” Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a “special duty.”

 

, , , ,

PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PROPERTY OWNERS (LANDLORDS) MAY BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT OF THEIR AGENTS IN DEALING WITH PROSPECTIVE TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, determined the owners of housing accommodations may be vicariously liable (pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law) for discrimination by their agents who deal with prospective tenants. Here plaintiff is an indigent person with AIDS. The complaint alleges he was denied housing by defendant, who acted as an agent for defendant property owners:

… [A]bsent vicarious liability, landlords would evade liability under the City HRL except when they directly interact with a prospective tenant. This is neither the mandate of the statute, nor supported by the legislative intent behind § 8-107 of the City HRL … .

The text of the City HRL also supports the imposition of vicarious liability upon landlords. Specifically, the key statutory remedy in the City HRL for housing discrimination is to approve the rental and to provide housing (see Administrative Code § 8-120[a][7]). Moreover, §§ 8-122 and 8-502 permit a tenant allegedly aggrieved by discriminatory practices to seek injunctive relief. In the absence of vicarious liability against owners, who have title to the prospective property, these remedies would be unavailable and rendered meaningless … . Newson v Vivaldi Real Estate LTD., 2025 NY Slip Op 00052, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law, landlords may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of their agents in dealing with prospective tenants.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS FOR DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CONTINUED DETENTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined several 42 USC 1983 causes of action against individual police officers should not have been dismissed. The Second Department noted allegations that individual police officers violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights need not be based upon a municipal policy or custom. Plaintiff alleged the officers fabricated evidence and conspired with the district attorney’s office to deprive him of his right to a fair trial and his right to be free from continued detention:

The plaintiff alleged … that the individual defendants, with knowledge that the plaintiff was not guilty, improperly caused the neup witness to identify the plaintiff as the shooter and thereafter caused him to be prosecuted. … [T]he allegations in the complaint were sufficient to plead the personal involvement of the individual defendants in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial … . Moreover, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that this cause of action was defective for failing to satisfy the “policy or custom” standard. Since the plaintiff was asserting a cause of action against the individual defendants in their individual capacities for an alleged constitutional violation … he was not required to allege facts satisfying that standard … . * * *

… [T]he complaint sufficiently stated a viable cause of action alleging a violation of the plaintiff’s right to be free from continued detention insofar as asserted against the individual defendants. The complaint alleged that the individual defendants knowingly concealed, among other things, evidence regarding the improper lineup identification, thereby “suppress[ing] evidence that was favorable to the plaintiff during the criminal proceeding” … . …

[U]nder the intra-corporate or intra-enterprise conspiracy doctrine,” and subject to certain exceptions, employees of “a public entity generally cannot conspire with [other] employees or agents” of the same entity, since “all are considered a single entity” … . Here, however, the doctrine is inapplicable because the plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants, members of the New York City Police Department, conspired with employees of a distinct governmental entity, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office … . Pressley v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 06563, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Causes of action asserting the violation of constitutional rights by individual police officers, as opposed to by the police department as a municipal entity, need not allege the violations were pursuant to a department policy or custom.

Practice Point: Although a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights cannot be based upon an agreement among police officers in a single department, it can be based upon an agreement among police officers and district attorneys.

 

, ,

THE MUNICIPAL LAW PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES JUNK YARDS TO BE LICENSED DOES NOT APPLY IN PLAINTIFF TOWN WHERE DEFENDANT OPERATES HER JUNK YARD; A LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE LICENSURE, IS THE CONTROLLING LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Municipal Law provision which requires junk yards to be licensed does not apply to defendant because the local zoning ordinance is the controlling law:

… [T]he parties dispute whether General Municipal Law § 136 applies to junkyards located within plaintiff [town]. That statute provides that it “shall not be construed to . . . supersede . . . ordinances or local laws for the control of junk yards . . . and shall not be deemed to apply to any municipality which has any ordinance or local law or regulation to license or regulate junk yards” (General Municipal Law § 136 [12]).

We agree with defendant that General Municipal Law § 136 is inapplicable to plaintiff’s regulation of her junkyard inasmuch as plaintiff has a local “zoning ordinance[] . . . for the control of junk yards . . . in effect” … . Plaintiff’s Zoning Ordinance … defines the term “Junkyard,” establishes Zoning Districts, including, as relevant here, an “Agricultural/Residential District” and an “Industrial Zoning District,” provides that a junkyard is allowed only in an Industrial Zoning District and only with a Special Use Permit, and governs the application for and issuance of Special Use Permits. Plaintiff [town] therefore effectively implemented an “ordinance or local law or regulation to license or regulate junk yards” … . It is of no moment that plaintiff’s Zoning Ordinance did not include a specific policy for issuing a license for junkyards … . Town of Montezuma v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 06433, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: By its own terms the General Municipal Law provision which requires licensure of junk yards does not apply in towns that have a zoning ordinance which regulates junk yards, even where the ordinance does not require licensure.

 

, ,

THE SO-CALLED “LUXURY DEREGULATION” PROVISION OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW WAS REPEALED AS OF JUNE 14, 2019; APARTMENTS WITH LEASES IN EFFECT ON THE REPEAL DATE WHICH, PRIOR TO THE REPEAL, HAD BEEN ORDERED TO BECOME DEREGULATED, WERE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR DEREGULATION AS OF JUNE 14, 2019 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined that the NYC Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) properly interpreted a provision of the Rent Stabilization Law which repealed the so-called “luxury deregulation” of rent stabilized residences. Prior to the operative date of the repeal, June 14, 2019, landlords could deregulate apartments if the tenant’s income exceeded the statutory threshold for two years:

Our primary task on this appeal is statutory interpretation. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) properly interpreted part D of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)—repealing so-called “luxury deregulation” of rent stabilized residences—as applying to apartments that, prior to the repeal, were ordered to become deregulated upon expiration of the tenants’ leases, which would not expire until after the effective date of the repeal. We answer that question in the affirmative and hold that, contrary to petitioner’s contention, DHCR’s interpretation of part D as eliminating luxury deregulation for an apartment owned by petitioner was proper and did not constitute an impermissible retroactive application. Matter of 160 E. 84th St. Assoc. LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2024 NY Slip Op 06377, CtApp 12-19-24

 

, , , ,

AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical subcontractor, Mikoma Tech, did not prove it was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. Therefore plaintiff could not sue for breach of contract or under a quantum meruit theory and could not foreclose on mechanic’s liens:

… [T]he complaint … failed to allege that Mikoma Tech was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. As Mikoma Tech was not licensed to perform electrical work in the City, it may not recover against the defendants under a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory and has forfeited the right to foreclose on mechanic’s liens … . Mikoma Elec., LLC v Otek Bldrs., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06332, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: The rule requiring a license to perform electrical work in New York City is strictly construed. The unlicensed contractor cannot sue for payment and cannot foreclose mechanic’s liens.

 

, , , ,

THE 18 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF REPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE WERE ACTING PURSUANT TO A MUNICIPAL CUSTOM OR POLICY WHEN THEY ALLEGEDLY PUSHED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND, HANDCUFFED HER AND TASED HER; HOWEVER THE BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the battery cause of action in this Civil Rights Law (18 USC 1983) case should not have been dismissed. The lawsuit stemmed from the police allegedly pushing plaintiff to the ground, striking her, handcuffing her and tasing her. The 18 USC 1983 cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff did not prove the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy. However, the battery cause of action should not have been dismissed:

However … a jury could rationally conclude that the defendants are liable for battery. “‘To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature'” … . “[A]n assault and battery cause of action may be based on contact during an unlawful arrest” … .

At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the detention was not privileged under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, and the trial evidence showed that the officers engaged in contact with the plaintiff during the allegedly unlawful detention. The trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to allow the jury to rationally conclude that the two officers were acting within the scope of their official duties at the relevant time. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the cause of action alleging battery … . Mac v County of Suffolk, 2024 NY Slip Op 06330, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: A municipality cannot be held liable pursuant to 18 USC 1983 for the actions of police officers under a respondeat superior theory. The plaintiff must show the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy.

Practice Point: A municipality may be liable for battery committed by police officers acting within the scope of their employment.

 

, ,

A REPORT OF A ROAD DEFECT SUBMITTED THROUGH A CITY’S ONLINE REPORTING SYSTEM MAY CONSTITUTE “WRITTEN NOTICE” TRIGGERING MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE DEFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined there was a question of fact whether the online reporting of a road defect constituted “written notice” of the defect such that the municipality may be liable for plaintiff’s motorcycle accident. The Court noted that the plaintiff also raised a question of fact whether the city created the road defect, obviating the need for written notice, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to the proprietary function of road repair:

Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle on Lark Street in the City of Albany. He brought this lawsuit claiming that the accident was caused by a road defect that the City knew about and had failed to repair. The primary issue on appeal is whether certain reports submitted to the City through an online reporting system called “SeeClickFix” (SCF) served as “written notice” of that defect and, if so, whether those reports were “actually given” to the official designated by statute to receive such notice. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, based on the implementation and use of the SCF system by the City and its Department of General Services (DGS), we hold that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to prior written notice to the appropriate City official. We further hold that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding the affirmative negligence exception to the prior written notice requirement, and that the City lacks governmental immunity from suit. We therefore affirm. * * *

… [A]t the time of the accident, the City’s prior written notice statute provided:

“No civil action shall be maintained against the City for damages or injuries to person or property sustained in consequence of any street . . . being defective, out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed unless, previous to the occurrence resulting in such damages or injury, written notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition of said street . . . was actually given to the Commissioner of Public Works and there was a failure or neglect within a reasonable time after the receipt of such notice to repair or remove the defect, danger or obstruction complained of” (Albany City Code former § 24-1 …). Calabrese v City of Albany, 2024 NY Slip Op 06289, CtApp 12-17-24

Practice Point: Here a report of a road defect had been submitted through an online reporting system implemented by the city. There was a question of fact whether such a report constituted “written notice” of the road defect, and whether the notice was actually given to the commissioner of public works.

 

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