You are here: / Municipal Law
,

ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendants (city and police) in an action alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution. Defendant was accused of possession of a weapon and spent 247 days in jail before being acquitted at trial. The accusation was based on the testimony of one of the police officers at the scene who said he saw defendant drop the weapon on a pile of garbage bags (where the weapon was apparently recovered). No other officer at the scene saw defendant with a weapon. And there was no mention of defendant discarding the weapon in any of paperwork relating to defendant’s arrest:

The elements of a claim for malicious prosecution are (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff; (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding; and (4) actual malice … . A jury may infer that a defendant acted with actual malice from the fact that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff … . As noted, there are numerous factual questions concerning whether the police had the requisite probable cause to arrest plaintiff and initiate criminal proceedings. The omissions in the police paperwork and the various versions of events raise questions as to the credibility of the police account of what transpired. Further, the presumption of probable cause attaching upon an accused’s arraignment or indictment may be overcome by evidence that “the police witnesses have not made a complete and full statement of facts either to the Grand Jury or to the District Attorney, that they have misrepresented or falsified evidence, that they have withheld evidence or [that they have] otherwise acted in bad faith” … . Mendez v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 01586, 1st Dept 3-8-16

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN FABRICATED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN FABRICATED)

,

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE ELIMINATION OF POSITION WAS DONE IN BAD FAITH; NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE TOWN’S ACTIONS.

The Third Department determined the petitioner did not demonstrate the elimination of his position with the parks maintenance department was done in bad faith or to circumvent the Civil Service Law. The Third Department concluded the town violated the Open Meetings Law when it eliminated petitioner’s position, but the nature of the violation (mere negligence) did not warrant invalidating the town’s actions:

“[A] public employer may, in the absence of bad faith, collusion or fraud, abolish positions for purposes of economy or efficiency” … . Respondent explained through the affidavits of its Supervisor and a member of its Town Board that because its parks maintenance department consisted of only petitioner and one part-time laborer, it could achieve greater economy and efficiency by abolishing the supervisory position in favor of hiring additional laborers. Petitioner’s managerial duties were shifted to the Supervisor and two full-time and one part-time laborer positions were created at an overall cost savings.

The burden was then on petitioner to demonstrate that his position was eliminated in bad faith or as a subterfuge to circumvent his rights under the Civil Service Law … . However, the mere reassignment of duties, in and of itself, does not constitute proof of bad faith … . Nor is there any indication in the record of any personal or political animosities that would suggest some deceitful purpose of ousting and replacing petitioner. Rather, petitioner’s conclusory and unsupported assertions fail to refute the Town Board’s showing that its actions were part of a good faith effort to reorganize a municipal department for the purposes of reducing costs and increasing efficiency … .

* * * “[T]he record does not suggest that the [Town Board’s] failure to comply with the precise requirements of the Open Meetings Law was anything more than mere negligence,” which does not constitute good cause to invalidate the Town Board’s otherwise permissible actions … . Matter of Cutler v Town of Mamakating, 2016 NY Slip Op 01543, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S POSITION NOT DONE IN BAD FAITH)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S POSITION NOT DONE IN BAD FAITH)/OPEN MEETINGS LAW (NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE TOWN’S ACTIONS)

, ,

POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION BASED SOLELY UPON THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WITHOUT APPLYING THE HIRING CRITERIA GENERALLY REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTIONS LAW.

The First Department, as a matter of first impression, determined the police department (NYPD) could refuse to hire petitioner as a civilian police communication technician (PCT) solely because petitioner had a criminal record, without regard to the criteria set out in Corrections Law article 23-a. The Corrections Law, in an effort to support the hiring of persons with a criminal record, generally requires employers to determine whether an applicant’s criminal record has a direct relationship with the responsibilities of the job and/or whether employment of the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to the public.  The First Department concluded the Corrections Law excluded law enforcement from the reach of its hiring criteria:

Article 23-A broadly provides that employers, whether public or private, are prohibited from unfairly discriminating against persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses, unless after consideration of certain enumerated statutory factors, the employer determines that there is direct relationship between the offense(s) and the duties or responsibilities inherent in the license or employment sought or held by the individual, or such employment or license poses an unreasonable risk to the public, etc. (Correction Law §§ 752, 753). The statute defines the term “employment” as follows: “(5) Employment’ means any occupation, vocation or employment, or any form of vocational or educational training. Provided, however, that “employment” shall not, for the purposes of this article, include membership in any law enforcement agency” (Correction Law § 750[5] emphasis added). Matter of Belgrave v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 01548, 1st Dept 3-3-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/CORRECTIONS LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)

,

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)

,

LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT.

The First Department determined the landlord’s failure to procure a rental permit in accordance with the Town Code did not provide the tenant, Fairfield, with a defense to the landlord’s action to collect rent:

 

… [P]laintiff does not dispute that it failed to comply with the provisions of the Town of Southampton Code that, as enacted in 2008, require an owner to obtain a $200 biennial rental permit before the rental period commences or within 30 days after receiving actual notice from the Town of the failure to comply (see §§ 270-5[A][1]; 270-8[A]; 270-13). However, under the circumstances, the Town Code does not provide a defense to plaintiff’s claims against the Fairchild defendants, because it “does not provide expressly that its violation will deprive the parties of their right to sue on the contract, and the denial of relief is wholly out of proportion to the requirements of public policy or appropriate individual punishment” … . While the Town Code addresses matters affecting public welfare, it does not expressly preclude [*2]an owner from bringing a lawsuit to collect rent, it imposes relatively minor sanctions to redress violations, and it allows the owner to cure a default after receiving actual notice of a violation (Town Code §§ 270-5; 270-13; 270-19). We conclude that the Fairchild defendants, having occupied the premises and raised a patently inadequate forgery defense, should not be permitted to rely on the provisions of the Town Code “as a sword for personal gain rather than a shield for the public good,” i.e., to avoid payment of rent due under the lease … or enforcement of the absolute and unconditional guaranty given by Fairchild to induce plaintiff to enter into the lease … . 1424 Millstone Rd., LLC v James B. Fairchild, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01250, 1st Dept 2-18-16

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE A TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE A TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT)

, ,

CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN AN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING A POLICE VAN.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this car-accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a police van driven by an unlicensed car-wash attendant. The city was not liable for negligently entrusting the vehicle to the unlicensed driver because, inter alia, there was no duty to make sure the attendant had a license before handing over the keys to him. In addition, the city was not vicariously liable as the owner of the van pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. Police vehicles are statutorily exempt from such liability. Plaintiff argued that the exemption did not apply because the van was not being “operated” by the police department at the time of the accident. The First Department held that “operated” in this context means “to exercise power over,” and not “driven:”

 

Plaintiff’s argument that the NYPD traffic van does not qualify as a “police vehicle,” because it was not being “operated by the police department” at the time of the accident, but, rather, was being “operated” by the car wash attendant, assumes that the term “operated” means “to cause to function” (Merriam- Webster Online Dictionary, http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operate [accessed Jan. 27, 2016]) or is a substitute for the word “driven.” This ignores the common use of the term “operated” as an intransitive verb meaning “to exert power or influence” (id.). Under plaintiff’s interpretation, a police vehicle would not qualify as such under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 132-a, unless it was being driven by “the police department,” which strains common sense, since a police department cannot be the driver of a vehicle.

More importantly, plaintiff’s interpretation would strip the exemption provided to police vehicles in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2) of its force and effect. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 specifically contemplates that someone, other than the vehicle’s owner, is driving the vehicle when an injury occurs. If “police vehicles” are only exempted when an owner or owner equivalent is driving, there would be no need for the exemption in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2). This interpretation is untenable as it would render the police vehicle exemption in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2) meaningless … . Guevara v Ortega, 2016 NY Slip Op 01106, 1st Dept 2-16-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)

, , ,

POLICE OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff police officer had stated causes of action for unlawful discrimination based upon a disability under the Human Rights Law and the federal Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff was arrested for DWI and entered a rehabilitation program where he was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his work in New York City after the 9-11 attack. Plaintiff was terminated upon completion of the rehabilitation program. The city argued his termination was based on the DWI, but plaintiff alleged other officers, who were not disabled, were not terminated after committing a criminal offense. The Fourth Department noted that when the plaintiff’s and defendant’s arguments are equally supported, plaintiff must prevail in a motion to dismiss:

 

Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for disability discrimination under the Human Rights Law by alleging that: he has a disability and is therefore a member of a protected class; he is qualified for his position; he suffered an adverse employment action, i.e., termination of his employment; and the termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . Similarly, plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for discriminatory termination under the Rehabilitation Act by alleging that: “(1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the job; (3) he was terminated solely because of his disability; and (4) the program or activity receives federal funds” … . …

In support of those causes of action, plaintiff alleged that the City did not terminate the employment of two nondisabled employees after they were arrested for criminal misconduct, thus raising an inference that his termination was based upon his disability. The court stated in its decision that plaintiff’s allegations “equally support” the conclusions that those two employees and plaintiff were similarly situated, and that they were not similarly situated. On the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), however, facts that equally support opposing inferences must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor … . Regan v City of Geneva, 2016 NY Slip Op 01101, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/REHABILITATION ACT (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY SUPPORTED, PLAINTIFF MUST PREVAIL IN A MOTION TO DISMISS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)POLICE OFFICERS (OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

, ,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE FOR PRESS RELEASE ABOUT TATOO-RELATED INFECTIONS, PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE MALICE.

The Fourth Department determined the defendant county Department of Health was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s defamation cause of action. The Department of Health had linked eight cases of infection to a particular tatoo artist. The tatoo artist told the Department he worked for plaintiff Tatoos by Design, Inc., doing business as Hardcore Tatoo. The Department issued a press release warning of the infections and noted that the tatoo artist in question reported to them he had worked for Hardcore. The Fourth Department held the Department of Health had a qualified privilege to issue the health warning and plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the press release was motivated solely by malice:

 

Generally, a statement is subject to a qualified privilege when it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in a matter where his interest is concerned’ ” … . Defendants, as public health officials, had a public duty to inform the public about the hazards of potential exposure to the subject tattoo artist’s work (see Public Health Law § 2100…), and it was within the scope of that duty that the press release containing the allegedly defamatory statements was issued … .

Once defendants established that the statements in the press release were protected by a qualified privilege, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact “whether the statements were motivated solely by malice” … , meaning “spite or a knowing or reckless disregard of a statement’s falsity”… . Tattoos By Design, Inc. v Kowalski, 2016 NY Slip Op 01091, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

DEFAMATION (QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE FOR PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE: PRESS RELEASE)/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (DEFAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE: PRESS RELEASE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DEFAMATION, COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE: PRESS RELEASE)

,

FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, found that a property owner, West River, which had a statutory duty to maintain an abutting sidewalk, was not entitled to summary judgment based solely on the fact that the defect in the sidewalk over which plaintiff tripped was not in front West River’s property. The expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was in front of a neighboring property (the Mercado property). However, a nearby portion of the sidewalk which had subsided was in front of West River’s property. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, West River was required to demonstrate it did not breach its duty to maintain the sidewalk, or that any such breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall.  Simply demonstrating the expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of West River’s property was not enough:

 

Plaintiff tripped on an expansion joint that abutted the Mercados’ property. That does not end the inquiry, nor does the fact that the defect upon which plaintiff tripped was in front of the Mercado property necessarily absolve West River of liability. Although West River did not have a duty to remedy any defects in front of the Mercado property, section 7-210 (a) [of the Administrative Code of the City of New York] imposed a duty on West River to maintain the sidewalk abutting its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Moreover, the plain language of section 7-210 (b) provides that West River may be held liable for injuries where its failure to maintain its sidewalk is a proximate cause of that injury. Here, most of the sunken sidewalk flag that plaintiff traversed abutted West River’s property, and plaintiff claims that West River’s sidewalk flag had sunk lower than the expansion joint upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped. Thus, West River failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, leaving factual questions as to whether West River breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk flag abutting its property and, if so, whether that breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment should have been denied. Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01002, CtApp 2-11-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SIDEWALKS (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)

,

BASED ON THE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY, THE TERM “OCCURRENCE” REFERRED TO EACH TIME A MEMBER OF THE CLASS WAS INJURED, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE; THEREFORE THE DEDUCTIBLE WAS TRIGGERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH INJURED CLASS MEMBER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the policy-term “occurrence,” for purposes of applying the deductible for each “occurrence,” meant each time a member of the class was injured, and not the single injury to the class as a whole. The class action was brought by an arrestee who was illegally strip-searched at the county jail. 800 others similarly searched made up the class. The insurance policy taken out by the county included a deductible of $10,000 for each “occurrence.” The county argued that the injury to the class as a whole was a single occurrence and triggered only one $10,000 deductible. The court held that, based on the plain language of the policy, each strip-search constituted a separate occurrence. Therefore the $10,000 deductible applied to each member of the class (making the county liable for all the damage payments):

 

The plain language of the insurance policy indicates that the improper strip searches of the arrestees over a four-year period constitute separate occurrences under the policies at issue. Contrary to the County’s argument, the definition of “occurrence” in the policies is not ambiguous. The policy defines ‘occurrence’ as “an event, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results in . . . ‘personal injury’ . . . by any person or organization and arising out of the insured’s law enforcement duties” (emphasis added). Thus, the language of the insurance policies makes clear that it covers personal injuries to an individual person as a result of a harmful condition. The definition does not permit the grouping of multiple individuals who were harmed by the same condition, unless that group is an organization, which is clearly not the case here. The harm each experienced was as an individual, and each of the strip searches constitutes a single occurrence … . Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v County of Rensselaer, 2016 NY Slip Op 01001, CtApp 2-11-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (CLASS ACTION, DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/CLASS ACTION (INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CLASS ACTION, COUNTY’S INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)

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