You are here: / Municipal Law
,

Failure to Construct a Concrete Pad at a Bus Stop Does Not Constitute “Affirmative Negligence” On the Part of the City—Written Notice Requirement Applied

The Second Department determined the city’s failure to install a concrete pad for a bus stop was not the kind of “affirmative negligence” for which prior written notice of a defect is not required.

“Prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which a plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City” … . The two recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement are where the defect or hazard results from an “affirmative act of negligence” by the municipality, or a special use by the municipality that conferred a special benefit from it … . Only when one of these exceptions applies is the written notice requirement obviated … .

The plaintiff’s contention that the City failed to install a concrete bus pad, resulting in the formation of a physical defect in the roadway which caused her to fall, does not amount to an “affirmative act of negligence.” Thus, the plaintiff’s claim requires prior written notice pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) … . Rodriguez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06324, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

Village Did Not Have Authority to Sell Village Land Dedicated to Public Use (Public Roads) to Satisfy Property Tax Liens

The Second Department determined the village did not have the authority under the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) to sell land dedicated to public use (dedicated public streets) to satisfy property tax liens:

… [W]hile RPTL [Real Property Tax Law] 995 allows a municipality to consent to the sale of property to satisfy a tax lien, not all property owned by a municipality is freely alienable. As relevant here, a municipality holds the fee of dedicated public streets in trust for the public …, and may not convey such a fee unless there is specific legislative authorization permitting it, or the parcel’s use as a dedicated public street has been discontinued… .

RPTL 995 did not provide the Village with that specific authorization. The statute only authorizes petitions to collect “validly levied or charged” taxes (RPTL 995). Since the Legislature limited the application of the statute in that way, it did not contemplate that municipally owned property held for public use, which is exempted from taxation by RPTL 406(1), would be subject to an enforcement proceeding under RPTL 995, or that such property would be sold by a municipality at public auction in reliance on section 995, in satisfaction of a claim for such taxes (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 222). Contrary to the Village’s contention, Village Law § 1-102 likewise did not provide the specific authorization necessary for the Village to sell a dedicated public road. Matter of AJM Capital II, LLC v Incorporated Vil. of Muttontown, 2015 NY Slip Op 06335, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

Original Grantor Has the Power to Remove Restrictive Covenants from a Deed/Land Conveyed for Public Use Which Is Subject to a Condition Subsequent (Here a Reversionary Interest in the Deed) Is Not Covered by the Public Trust Doctrine (Legislative Approval for Conveyance for Private Use Not Required)

The Second Department upheld an agreement to remove restrictive covenants from a deed, allowing the village, to which the property had been conveyed, to retain the property free and clear from restrictions. The deed to the village from the Ortenbergs (husband and wife) included a covenant that the property would remain in its natural state for public purposes for the life of the village.  If the village ceased maintaining the property in a natural state, or if the village ceased to exist, the property reverted to the Ortenbergs, their heirs and assigns. After Mrs. Ortenberg died, Mr. Orternberg entered an agreement with the village to remove the restrictive covenants. The petitioners, owners of contiguous land, brought an Article 78 petition arguing that the agreement violated the public trust doctrine which requires the approval of the New York State Legislature before the land held for public use could be converted to private use.  The Second Department noted that the public trust doctrine does not apply to land conveyed for public use subject to a condition subsequent (the reversionary interest). The court also noted that the agreement was not subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA):

Ortenberg, as the grantor, had the authority to release the Village from its obligation to perform the conditions in the deed and thereupon waive and terminate his reversionary interest (… see a… EPTL 6-5.1). Moreover, the Village was not required to obtain the approval of the New York State Legislature before mutually rescinding the underlying agreement with Ortenberg. Under the public trust doctrine, “a municipality, without specific legislative sanction, may not permit property acquired or held by it for public use to be wholly or partly diverted to a possession or use exclusively private” …, but this doctrine is inapplicable to property which is subject to a reversionary interest … . Where “the land acquired by the [municipality] for public . . . purposes was conveyed subject to a condition subsequent it is not under the control of the Legislature” … . Matter of Rappaport v Village of Saltaire, 2015 NY Slip Op 06246, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

,

Criteria for Valuation of a Partial Taking of Vacant Land Explained

The Second Department determined the valuation of a partial taking of vacant land (the value before minus the value after the taking based on the highest and best use of the land)  was flawed and remitted the matter for a new valuation.  The decision is detailed and fact-specific and therefore is not fully summarized here.  The court explained some of the most significant valuation criteria, noting that any comparable sales considered in the valuation must be similar in character to the subject land (not so here):

When private property is taken for public use, the condemning authority must “compensate the owner so that he may be put in the same relative position, insofar as this is possible, as if the taking had not occurred'” … . Where, as here, there is a partial taking of real property, “the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the whole before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking” … . “The measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time”… . The determination of highest and best use must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of the property in the near future … . Matter of County of Orange v Monroe Bakertown Rd. Realty, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06143, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the Municipality’s Timely Knowledge of the Essential Facts Underlying the Claim (Not Met Here)

In finding Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria, noting it is most important that the municipality have timely knowledge of the actual facts underlying the claim:

“In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits” … . “While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” … . The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . Matter of Barrett v Village of Wappingers Falls, 2015 NY Slip Op 06138, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Failure to Strictly Comply with the Procedure Mandated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Required Annulment of the Town’s Negative Declaration Re: the Construction of a Casino and Resort

The Fourth Department, with two concurring and one dissenting justice, determined that the town’s negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) with respect to the construction of a casino and resort should have been annulled because the town did not strictly comply with mandated procedure. Specifically the negative declaration did not include a “reasoned elaboration” as required by the relevant regulation. A document prepared by the town’s counsel explaining the reasons for the negative declaration was never approved or adopted by the town board and therefore did not meet the statutory/regulatory “reasoned elaboration” requirement:

It is well settled that SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms mandate strict compliance, and anything less will result in annulment of the lead agency’s determination of significance … . “[L]iteral rather than substantial compliance with SEQRA is required” … . Here, 6 NYCRR 617.7 (b) (4) requires that, in making the determination of significance, the lead agency—in this case the Town Board—must “set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing reference to any supporting documentation.” We conclude that the intent of the regulation is to focus and facilitate judicial review and, of no lesser importance, to provide affected landowners and residents with a clear, written explanation of the lead agency’s reasoning at the time the negative declaration is made. We reject respondents’ contention that we should search the entire record to discern the Town Board’s reasoning as of June 12, 2014 in making the determination to issue the negative declaration. “A record evincing an extensive legislative process . . . is neither a substitute for strict compliance with SEQRA’s [written] reasoned elaboration requirement nor sufficient to prevent annulment” … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant the petition, thereby annulling the negative declaration and vacating the site plan approval and all related resolutions. Matter of Dawley v Whitetail 414, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06082 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

Party Who Properly Withdrew a Mistaken Bid on a Public Works Project Should Have Been Allowed to Rebid

The Fourth Department determined a party (Kandey) who withdrew a mistaken bid on a public works project should have been allowed to rebid:

The court properly concluded that a rational basis supported the County’s determination that Kandey made the showing required by General Municipal Law § 103 (11) (a) when it sought permission to withdraw its mistaken bid. The court erred, however, in concluding that the County failed to comply with General Municipal Law § 103 (11) (b) when it permitted Kandey to participate in the rebid. That section provides that the “sole remedy for a bid mistake in accordance with this section shall be withdrawal of that bid and the return of the bid bond or other security, if any, to the bidder.” That is precisely what the County did here when it permitted Kandey to withdraw the mistaken bid. The statute further provides that, after the mistaken bid is withdrawn, the County “may, in its discretion, award the contract to the next lowest responsible bidder or rebid the contract,” and the County acted within the discretion extended to it under the statute when it elected to rebid the contract.

The statute is silent on the question whether a contractor that was permitted to withdraw its bid may participate in the rebid. We agree with Kandey and the County that, had the Legislature intended to forbid a contractor in Kandey’s position from participating in the rebid, it would have done so explicitly. Further, “[a] court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision which it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended intentionally to omit” … . Thus, we do not interpret the statute to include an implicit prohibition against Kandey’s participation in the rebid following the withdrawal of its mistaken bid. Matter of Concrete Applied Tech. Corp. v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 06087, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

,

Declaratory Judgment, Not Mandamus, Was Proper Vehicle for Determining Whether a Town Was Obligated to Repair a Bridge

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly converted a mandamus proceeding to a declaratory judgment proceeding and properly found that the town was obligated, under the Highway Law, to repair an unsafe bridge. However, Supreme Court did not have the power to direct the town to make the repairs “as expeditiously as possible.”  The Second Department explained the relevant law:

“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” …, whereas declaratory relief “is not an extraordinary remedy,” as it “only provides a declaration of rights between parties” and “cannot be executed upon so as to compel a party to perform an act” … . Here, the appellants correctly concede that the Town is obligated to repair and maintain the Dock Street Bridge, since it is part of a highway by use within the meaning of Highway Law § 189 by virtue of the Town’s maintenance of Dock Street for the requisite statutory time period … . However, as the Supreme Court correctly observed, “[t]he many factors involved in a determination as to when and how bridges should be constructed, reconstructed and repaired militate that such judgments must be left to the [Town], with due regard to fiscal appropriations, and should not be the subject of judicial fiat” … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 103(c) and, thereupon, declared that the Town “is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of the Dock Street Bridge”… .

However, the Supreme Court erred by declaring that the Town “shall take all measures necessary to fulfill its legal obligation to repair or replace the Dock Street Bridge, as expeditiously as possible in consideration of . . . fiscal and other concerns.” It is beyond cavil that ” questions of judgment, discretion, allocation of resources and priorities [are] inappropriate for resolution in the judicial arena'” … . As the Supreme Court recognized, it is within the discretion of the Town to “investigat[e] . . . the most appropriate method of repairing or replacing the bridge, and the potential availability of grants and funding sources other than the [T]own’s tax base” to address its “present financial inability to replace the Dock Street Bridge,” and courts cannot interfere with this function … . Consequently, the Supreme Court’s declaration that the Town must “take all measures necessary to . . . repair or replace the Dock Street Bridge[ ] as expeditiously as possible” was purely advisory and does not create any binding obligation on the Town. Thus, this declaration was improper … . Matter of Hyde Park Landing, Ltd. v Town of Hyde Park, 2015 NY Slip Op 05945, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Under the Public Trust Doctrine, Only the Uses of the Dedicated Parkland Which Were Contemplated by the Relevant Provisions of the NYC Administrative Code Are Allowed—The Code Provisions Authorized Construction of Facilities Directly Related to Shea Stadium (Now Demolished)—Under Standard Rules of Statutory Construction, the Meaning of the Code Provisions Cannot Be Stretched to Allow the Construction of a Shopping Mall

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined that provisions of the NYC Administrative Code could not be interpreted to allow the construction of a shopping mall in the area where Shea Stadium once stood. Rather the code provisions allowed only construction which was relevant to the stadium. Under the public trust doctrine only the uses of the dedicated parkland contemplated by the code provisions were authorized

This dispute turns on whether the plain language of Administrative Code § 18-118 compels a narrow use of the parkland in question such that any additional construction on it must be directly related to a stadium, or whether any such construction on the parkland must only be related to one of the purposes delineated in § 18-118(b). The proper interpretation of the statute is critical in this case, because, under the public trust doctrine, dedicated park areas in New York are impressed with a public trust for the benefit of the people of the State, and their “use for other than park purposes, either for a period of years or permanently, requires the direct and specific approval of the State Legislature, plainly conferred” … . Stated differently, parkland may be alienated or leased for non-park purposes as long as authorized by the legislature …, and the “legislative authority required to enable a municipality to sell its public parks must be plain” … . * * *

… [T]he public trust doctrine is clear that any alienation of parkland must be explicitly authorized by the legislature. No reasonable reading of Administrative Code section 18-118 allows for the conclusion that the legislature in 1961 contemplated, much less gave permission for, a shopping mall, unrelated to the anticipated stadium, to be constructed in the Park. Further, it is simply not in our power to set the doctrine aside, no matter how worthy a proposed use of parkland may be. Here, while there is a legislative mandate for the use of the Park, that mandate does not encompass the use proposed by respondents. Matter of Avella v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05790, 1st Dept 7-2-15

 

, ,

Police Vehicles Are Excluded from the Meaning of “Motor Vehicle” in the Insurance Law—Passenger-Police-Officer Injured In a Police Vehicle by an Uninsured/Underinsured Driver Is Not Covered Under the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Provision of the Police-Officer-Driver’s Personal Policy

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined that a police vehicle is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Insurance Law. Therefore a police officer, who was injured in a police vehicle driven by another police officer, could not recover under the police-officer-driver’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in the driver’s personal insurance policy:

… Insurance Law §§ 3420 (e) and 3420 (f) (1) do not directly define “motor vehicle” in so many words, but Insurance Law § 3420 (e) does refer to “a motor vehicle or a vehicle as defined in [VTL 388 (2)].” VTL 388 is the sole provision of VTL article 11, which governs civil liability for negligence in the operation of vehicles. VTL 388 (2) states, “As used in this section, ‘vehicle’ means a ‘motor vehicle’, as defined in [VTL 125], except fire and police vehicles,” and certain other vehicles not relevant here (see VTL 388 [2]).  * * *

… [B]ecause the liability insurance provision of Insurance Law § 3420 (e) had traditionally dovetailed with the coverage of VTL 388 and its predecessors, Insurance Law § 3420 (e) employed the phrase “of a motor vehicle or of a vehicle as defined in [VTL 388]” as an imprecise way of incorporating the limitations of VTL 388 into Insurance Law § 3420 (e). In other words, Insurance Law § 3420 (e) used VTL 388 (2) to redefine “motor vehicle” as exempting police vehicles from the automobile insurance sections of Insurance Law § 3420. Given that the uninsured motorist and SUM coverage sections of Insurance Law § 3420 had originated as outgrowths designed to simply fill the uninsured or underinsured motorist “gaps” in the compulsory insurance statute and Insurance Law § 3420 (e), rather than to expand the class of covered vehicles, the Court rightly decided that Insurance Law §§ (f) (1) and (f) (2) logically applied to the limited category of “motor vehicles” referenced in Insurance Law § 3420 (e), thus also excluding police vehicles. Since SUM coverage under Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) was just a variant of uninsured coverage under subsection (f) (1) of the same statute, the Court appropriately found that SUM coverage was likewise limited to non-police vehicles. Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fitzgerald, 2015 NY Slip Op 05626, CtApp 7-1-15

 

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