You are here: / Municipal Law
,

CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

The Second Department determined that the city (NYC) was responsible for maintenance of grates or covers on sidewalks pursuant to the Rules of the City of New York Department of Transportation. Therefore plaintiff, who allegedly fell because a sidewalk hydrant valve cover was missing, could not sue the abutting landowners:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes liability for injuries resulting from negligent sidewalk maintenance on the abutting property owners. However, Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2-07(b) provides that owners of covers or gratings on a street are responsible for monitoring the condition of those covers and gratings and the area extending 12 inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware, and for ensuring that the hardware is flush with the surrounding street surface. “34 RCNY 2-01 includes a sidewalk’ within the definition of street'” … . Accordingly, the City, and not the defendants, was responsible for maintaining the condition of the area where the plaintiff fell … . “[T]here is nothing in section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York indicating that the City Council intended to supplant the provisions of 34 RCNY 2-07(b) and to allow a plaintiff to shift the statutory obligation of the owner of the cover or grating to the abutting property owner” … . Torres v Sander’s Furniture, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09091 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

 NEGLIGENCE (CITY [NYC], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/SLIP AND FALL (CITY [NYC], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY [NYC]], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/TRANSPORTATION, NYC DEPARTMENT OF (RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)

,

PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW EXPLAINED; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined plaintiff, who had brought a racial-discrimination action under the New York City Human Rights Law,  was unable to show that the employer’s reasons for terminating her were pretextual. The court held that the phrase “a leopard does not change its spots” and the term “tirade,” used in reference to plaintiff’s behavior, did not have discriminatory meanings. With respect to the proof requirements under the NYC Human Rights Law (“City HRL”), the court explained:

How the City HRL’s distinctive substantive definitions, standards, and frameworks interact with existing standards for summary judgment has been the subject of some confusion … . As with any other civil case, a discrimination plaintiff must produce enough evidence to preclude the moving defendant from being able to prove that (1) no issues of material fact have been placed in dispute by competent evidence, and (2) a reasonable jury (resolving all inferences that can reasonably be drawn in favor of the non-moving party) could not find for the plaintiff on any set of facts under any theory of the case. But recognizing that the general evidentiary standard remains the same in discrimination cases does not permit a court to apply the standard in a manner that ignores the distinctiveness of City HRL causes of action. All the general standard does, in other words, is provide the template that says, “Defendant must prove that no reasonable jury can conclude X.” The “X” depends on the cause of action.

Thus, the only substantive requirement in a City HRL case where the plaintiff goes the “pretext” route is for the plaintiff to produce some evidence to suggest that at least one reason is “false, misleading, or incomplete.” A plaintiff who satisfies this requirement may well have produced less evidence than would be required under the state and federal laws. But he or she will have produced enough evidence to preclude the defendant from proving that no reasonable jury could conclude that any of the defendant’s reasons was pretextual. In other words, the general evidentiary standard comfortably co-exists with the distinctive substantive framework that must be applied to City HRL claims. Cadet-Legros v New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 08984, 1st Dept 12-6-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACTION DISMISSED)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, NEW YORK CITY (PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED)/DISCRIMINATION (NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ACTION DISMISSED)/ MUNICIPAL LAW (DISCRIMINATION ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)

TOWN’S WITHDRAWAL FROM A COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (CAP) DOES NOT TERMINATE TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM.

The Third Department, in a matter of first impression, determined petitioner, a town assessor who was removed when the town withdrew from the coordinated assessment program (CAP), was entitled to finish out his six-year term. Under the CAP, the petitioner served three towns.  When one of those towns withdrew from the CAP, that town appointed its own town assessor. The Third Department held that petitioner was entitled to finish out his term as assessor for that town:

… [W]e find it telling that RPTL 579 was amended in 2009 to, among other things, clarify that an assessor appointed in a CAP receives a six-year term and to shorten the notice period for a member to withdraw (see L 2009, ch 46, §§ 1-3 [eff May 29, 2009]). The adoption of these companion provisions leads us to conclude that the Legislature intended an assessor’s six-year term to remain intact, even where a CAP member opts to withdraw. Insofar as the assessor is concerned, the effect of withdrawal is merely delayed until the assessor’s term expires, at which time the assessing unit is free to choose a new assessor, without approval from any other assessing unit. Matter of Rubeor v Town of Wright, 2015 NY Slip Op 08895, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM [CAP])/TOWN LAW (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM [CAP])/REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM [CAP])/COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM)

, ,

FIREFIGHTER RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION BY POLICE OFFICER STEMMING FROM A FALL AT THE OFFICE; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION PROPERLY BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 27-a.

The Second Department determined a police officer’s common law negligence and General Municipal Law 205-e actions should not have been dismissed.  The officer tripped over an electric cord at the office.  The firefighter rule did not bar the suit because the injury was not the result of the heightened risk associated with police work. The General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action was correctly based upon an alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a:

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the firefighter rule barred the plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging common-law negligence. The injured plaintiff’s injury did not occur during an act in furtherance of a police function which exposed her to a heightened risk of sustaining that injury. The performance of her duties merely furnished the occasion for the injury. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the condition complained of … . Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in directing dismissal of the plaintiffs’ common-law negligence cause of action.

The Supreme Court also erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. General Municipal Law § 205-e permits a police officer to assert a tort claim against a fellow officer or an employer. To establish a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, a police officer plaintiff must (1) identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, (2) describe the manner in which the police officer was injured, and (3) set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm … . As a prerequisite to recovery pursuant to a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action, “a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Here, the plaintiffs predicate their General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action on Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1). The Supreme Court correctly determined that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) may appropriately serve as a statutory predicate for a section 205-e cause of action, and does so here … . Kelly v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08808, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK)/MUNICIPAL LAW ([POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK, FIREFIGHTER RULE)/FIREFIGHTER RULE (POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e (POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK)/LABOR LAW 27-a(3)(a)(1) (VIOLATION AS PREDICATE FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION)

, ,

Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the “Work Experience Program [WEP]” to Receive Public Assistance, Was an “Employee” Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Pigott concurred), determined petitioner, who received public assistance from New York City and was therefore required to work 35 hours per week in the Work Experience Program (WEP), was an “employee” entitled to the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Petitioner, after completing the WEP, won $10,000 in the state lottery. Under the lottery rules, the state sought one-half of the lottery proceeds as reimbursement for the public assistance paid to petitioner. Petitioner argued that the reimbursement reduced the amount the state paid him for his WEP work below the minimum wage required by the FLSA. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s argument. The bulk of the opinion and the dissent dealt with the propriety of finding petitioner was an “employee” entitled to the minimum wage protections of the FLSA:

… [W]e must apply the economic reality test and, under that test, the City should be considered Carver’s employer. The City had the power to hire and fire WEP workers, in that it was the City’s responsibility to assign public assistance recipients to a WEP agency and the City could dismiss workers from WEP based upon their performance. Additionally, the City and its WEP agencies supervise and control the work schedule of the workers. Furthermore, the City and its agencies, such as HRA, maintain the employment records of the WEP workers. While the Social Services Law, not the WEP agencies or the City, determines the rate and method of payment of WEP workers, that is simply one factor. The economic reality test “encompasses the totality of the circumstances” … . Matter of Carver v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08451, CtApp 11-19-15

 

,

Standing Criteria for Petitioning for Review of Municipal Environmental Rulings Clarified; The Fact that Many People, in Addition to Petitioner, Will Suffer the Same Adverse Effects as Petitioner, Did Not Negate Petitioner’s Standing

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals clarified the nature of the standing requirement for contesting municipal rulings under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Village of Painted Post had approved the sale of municipal water to a company which operates gas wells in Pennsylvania. As part of that project, construction of a railroad loading facility was approved. A resident of the village, Martin, was one of the petitioners seeking the annulment of the Village’s SEQRA rulings. Martin, who lives near the rail facility, alleged the noise from the facility was different in degree from that experienced by the general public (thus according him standing to bring the petition). Supreme Court agreed Martin had standing. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals determined Martin did in fact sufficiently allege standing. The fact that other nearby residents would experience the same intrusion as Martin was not dispositive:

The Appellate Division, in concluding that petitioner Marvin lacked standing, applied an overly restrictive analysis of the requirement to show harm “different from that of the public at large,” reasoning that because other Village residents also lived along the train line, Marvin did not suffer noise impacts different from his neighbors. * * *

To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody.”]). The harm that is alleged must be specific to the individuals who allege it, and must be “different in kind or degree from the public at large”… , but it need not be unique. Here, petitioner Marvin is not alleging an indirect, collateral effect from the increased train noise that will be experienced by the public at large, but rather a particularized harm that may also be inflicted upon others in the community who live near the tracks.

The number of people who are affected by the challenged action is not dispositive of standing. …[S]tanding rules should not be “heavy-handed,” …[w]e are “reluctant to apply [standing] principles in an overly restrictive manner where the result would be to completely shield a particular action from judicial review” … . Applying the Appellate Division’s reasoning, because there are multiple residents who are directly impacted, no resident of the Village would have standing to challenge the actions of the Village, notwithstanding that the train noise fell within the zone of interest of SEQRA. That result would effectively insulate the Village’s actions from any review and thereby run afoul of our pronouncement that the standing rule should not be so restrictive as to avoid judicial review. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 08452, CtApp 11-19-15

 

, ,

County Did Not Demonstrate Its Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Re: Obstructed Intersection

The Second Department determined the county did not demonstrate (as a matter of law) it was entitled to qualified immunity for  the placement of a sensor station and the failure to trim the nearby hedges. The complaint alleged the sensor station and hedges obstructed plaintiff’s view of oncoming traffic, resulting in an accident. The county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The court explained the analytical criteria:

A governmental body owes a nondelegable duty to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . However, a governmental body is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway safety planning decision … . Such immunity is predicated upon an ability to demonstrate that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberative decision-making process … .

Contrary to the County’s contention, it did not sustain its prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity. The County failed to demonstrate, inter alia, that its placement of the sensor station cabinet and its decision to refrain from trimming the hedge were highway safety planning decisions resulting from a deliberative decision-making process of the type afforded immunity from judicial interference … . Iacone v Passanisi, 2015 NY Slip Op 08386, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether City Created Hazardous Condition

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the city created the allegedly hazardous condition (an expansion joint cover plate on a bridge which was struck by plaintiff’s bicycle):

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury … . In addition, “[a] municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” … . The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality … .

Here, the City failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject metal expansion joint cover plate did not present a hazardous or defective condition … . Although the plaintiff does not dispute that the City did not have prior written notice of the alleged hazardous or defective condition, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the City created the alleged hazardous or defective condition … . Oser v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08393, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Deemed a Verified Claim to Be a Summons and Complaint Under the Authority of CPLR 2001 (Allowing Correction of Mistakes in the Method of Filing)

Reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined that a verified claim filed by the plaintiff should not have been deemed a summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 2001 (which allows correction or clarification of a mistake in the method of filing):

Plaintiff filed a verified claim in this action and, before answering, defendant filed a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiff had “yet to file a Summons or a Complaint” and that “a complete failure to file is a jurisdictional defect.” Relying upon CPLR 2001, Supreme Court deemed the claim to be a complaint and excused the failure to file a summons as “an irregularity that shall be disregarded in this case.” That was error. We agree with defendant that CPLR 2001 does not permit a court to disregard the complete failure to file a summons, i.e., an initial paper necessary to commence an action … . As recognized by the Court of Appeals in quoting from the Senate Introducer’s Memorandum in support of the bill that amended CPLR 2001, the statute may be invoked as a basis to correct or clarify ” a mistake in the method of filing, AS OPPOSED TO A MISTAKE IN WHAT IS FILED’ “… . Fox v City of Utica, 2015 NY Slip Op 08267, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

,

Criteria for Mandamus to Compel Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department determined the county personnel director’s ruling that community college employees would no longer be eligible for promotions to county jobs was rationally based on the terms of an agreement between the county and the college. In finding that the “mandamus to compel” petition was properly denied, the court explained the relevant criteria:

” The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief has been demonstrated'” … . “A discretionary act involve[s] the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'” … . Since the petitioner sought to compel conduct clearly involving the application of … discretion and judgment …, the remedy of mandamus is not available. Matter of Suffolk County Assn. of Mun. Empls., Inc. v Levy, 2015 NY Slip Op 08181, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

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