You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street Sweepers in New York City—Standard Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the “reckless disregard” standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103, not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the operator of a New York City street sweeper who was in the process of cleaning the street when the sweeper struck plaintiff’s car.  A question of fact had been raised whether the applicable standard of care was violated:

… [U]nder VTL § 1642, the City of New York is authorized to establish additional rules, including rules that supercede those of the State (see VTL § 1642 [a] [“the legislative body of any city having a population in excess of one million, may by local law . . . restrict or regulate traffic on or pedestrian use of any highway . . .]). At the time of the accident, 34 RCNY [Rules of the City of New York] § 4-02 (d) (1)(v) provided that VTL § 1103 applies “to any person or team or any operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” and that “such persons are not relieved from the duty to proceed at all times during all phases of such work with due regard for the safety of all persons nor shall the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph protect such persons or teams or such operators of motor vehicles or other equipment from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others” (34 RCNY § 4-02 [d] [1] [iv]).

In Riley [95 NY2d 455], this Court held that the unambiguous language of VTL § 1103 (b), as further supported by its legislative history, made clear that the statute exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including sanitation sweepers, which are “actually engaged in work on a highway” (95 NY2d at 460), and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care (see id. at 466). The Court further concluded that liability under that standard is established upon a showing that the covered vehicle’s operator “‘has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (id. at 466… ). Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 04788, CtApp 6-9-15

 

, ,

County Was Not Responsible for the Day to Day Operation of Community College and Did Not Own the Dormitory Where Plaintiff’s Decedent Suffered Cardiac Arrest and Died—County Owed No Duty of Care to Plaintiff’s Decedent

Plaintiff’s decedent died of cardiac arrest in a Sullivan County Community College (SCCC) dormitory.  Plaintiff sued the county, alleging the dormitory should have been equipped with a defibrillator and/or should have had an emergency medical response plan in effect.  The Court of Appeals determined the complaint against the county was properly dismissed.  Although the county was the “sponsor” of the community college, it did not own the dormitory and did not manage the day-to-day operation of the community college, which was handled by the board of trustees (Education Law 6306):

While the County exercises significant influence and control over SCCC’s finances, only the College’s board of trustees is authorized to manage SCCC’s facilities; therefore, it alone is charged with the duty of care … . And here, the County additionally established that it did not even own the dormitory where decedent’s accident occurred … . Branch v County of Sullivan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04756, CtApp 6-9-15

 

, , ,

Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Deemed Timely (Sua Sponte, Nunc Pro Tunc)—the 90 Days Started Running When Plaintiff’s Asthma Symptoms Worsened, Not When a Doctor Connected the Symptoms to Mold in the Apartment—the Plaintiff Did Not Make a Motion for Permission to File a Late Notice of Claim

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte (in the absence of a motion by the plaintiff), deemed plaintiff’s late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc. The claim alleged mold resulting from a leak in plaintiff’s New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) apartment exacerbated plaintiff’s asthma.  The First Department found that the cause of action accrued when plaintiff’s symptoms worsened, no later than February, 2011, not when a connection between the mold and plaintiff’s symptoms was suggested by a doctor in March 2011:

[Plaintiff] was required to file a notice of claim within 90 days after “the date of [her] discovery of the injury” or the date on which “through the exercise of reasonable diligence the injury should have been discovered” (CPLR 214-c[3]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]…). NYCHA established that plaintiff’s claim accrued no later than February 2011, by relying on plaintiff’s testimony that her asthma symptoms worsened, resulting in more frequent attacks and hospital visits, starting in September or December of 2010, or January or February of 2011, when she was prescribed additional medications, as reflected in her hospital records. Thus, the notice of claim, filed over 90 days later in June 2011, without leave of court, was late and without effect … .

Plaintiff argues that her claim did not accrue until March 2011, when a doctor noted a connection between her symptoms and the mold in her apartment. However, a “cause of action for damages resulting from exposure to toxic substances accrues when the plaintiff begins to suffer the manifestations and symptoms of his or her physical condition, i.e.[,] when the injury is apparent, not when the specific cause of the injury is identified” … .

The court lacked authority to deem the late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc, since plaintiff never moved for such relief and the statutory time limitation for bringing the claim had already expired when NYCHA moved for summary judgment … . Vincent v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 04767, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

,

The Town’s Actual or Constructive Notice of a Sidewalk Defect Does Not Obviate the Written Notice Requirement

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to the town (re: an allegedly defective sidewalk where plaintiff fell) because the “written notice manually transcribed by the complainant” requirement was not met. The fact that there existed writings and email generated by the town concerning the defect, and the fact that the town may have had constructive or actual notice of the defect, did not obviate the written notice requirement:

“A municipality that has enacted a prior written notice statute may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defective condition in a sidewalk unless it either has received written notice of the defect or an exception to the written notice requirement applies” … . ” The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property'” … . The affirmative negligence exception is limited to work done by a municipality that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition … . Here, the Town has adopted a prior written notice law stating that written notices must be “manually subscribed by the complainant” and submitted to the Town Superintendent of Highways or the Town Clerk (Code of the Town of North Hempstead § 26-1). Wolin v Town of N. Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 04846,, 2nd Dept 6-9-15

 

,

Pursuant to the Public Authorities Law, Interest on a Judgment To Be Paid by the New York City Transit Authority Cannot Exceed 3%

The First Department noted that, although plaintiff procured a judgment (after trial) for past lost earnings against the city, the judgment will ultimately be paid by non-party New York City Transit Authority.  Therefore, pursuant to Public Authorities Law 1212(6), the interest on the judgment cannot exceed 3 %.  Soltero v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04770, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

,

Delay In Bringing Action Seeking to Stop a Development Project Which Had Been Proceeding for Years Precluded the Grant of a Preliminary Injunction, Despite the Apparent Legitimate Nature of the Allegations

The Third Department determined a preliminary injunction halting a development project which had been proceeding for years should not have been granted.  The development project started with the annexation of land by the village, for which no referendum had been held.  The action brought by the plaintiffs alleged the failure to hold the referendum violated local law and further alleged a conflict of interest arising from the mayor’s acquisition of project property  In spite of the apparently legitimate grounds for the action, the Third Department determined the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed because the action was brought so late and the project, consequently, had progressed so far:

We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ assertion that, in essence, the failure to conduct a referendum leaves the annexation subject to being set aside at any time in the future without regard to any time limitation. Cases involving an alleged failure to adhere to a voting requirement during an annexation have generally been found to be subject to a pertinent limitations’ period … . A statute of limitations may apply even when conduct inconsistent with a statute or the state constitution is alleged … . Simply stated, “a [s];tatute of [l];imitations does not have the effect of curing the underlying wrong, but rather extinguishes the right to judicial relief” … . We need not decide the particular limitations’ period for challenging an annexation made without a referendum — whether four months (see CPLR 217), six years (see CPLR 213) or some time in between (see e.g. CPLR 9802). Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood that a challenge to the annexation based upon the failure to conduct a referendum would be viable where, as here, over seven years have passed since the annexation. …

Next, we consider the 2010 development agreement, which plaintiffs contend is void because [the mayor] had a conflict of interest arising from the 2009 acquisition of some project property by himself and his parents (see General Municipal Law § 804). The 2nd Department, in a case affirmed by the Court of Appeals, has held that the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214 (2) applies to such a claim … . The [Mayor’s] deeds had been a matter of public record since 2009, before the 2010 development agreement was executed. Any conflict was known or should have been known as of the execution in 2010 of the development agreement, which was also a public document. This action was not brought until 2014.

Long delays can be relevant to the issue of whether equitable injunctive relief should be granted … . Although plaintiffs allege some unsavory (or worse) conduct by certain people involved directly or indirectly in the project, it is not clear from this record whether they can successfully show that the project defendants engaged in such conduct so as to prevent them from relying on equitable defenses such as laches … . Rural Community Coalition Inc v Village of Bloomingbury, 2014 NY Slip Op 04110, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

, , ,

Statutory Prohibition of Court Review of Civil Service Commission’s Determination (Where the Employee Elects to Appeal to the Commission Before Seeking Judicial Review) Does Not Apply When Constitutional Rights Are Implicated or Where the Agency Has Acted Illegally or In Excess of Its Jurisdiction

The Third Department determined, despite a statutory provision prohibiting judicial review when the employee elects to appeal to the Civil Service Commission before seeking judicial review, the courts have the power to review the agency’s determination when the agency has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Here the petitioner asserted her employment was terminated based on charges brought after the statute of limitations on those charges had passed. The Third Department agreed.  Although there is an exception to the application of the one-year statute of limitations when the charges constitute crimes, here the allegations of misconduct did not include the requisite mens rea for the crime of official misconduct (intent to gain a benefit and knowledge the conduct was unauthorized).  Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied. With respect to the power to review the agency’s determination, the Third Department wrote:

Civil Service Law § 76 (3) provides that where, as here, an employee has elected to appeal to respondent before seeking judicial review, “[t]he decision of [respondent] shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court” (see also Civil Service Law § 76 [1]). Such explicit statutory language ordinarily bars further appellate review … . However, statutory preclusion of all judicial review of the decisions rendered by an administrative agency in every circumstance would constitute a grant of unlimited and potentially arbitrary power too great for the law to countenance … . Thus, even when proscribed by statute, judicial review is mandated when constitutional rights are implicated by an administrative decision or “when the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction”… . Matter of De Guzman v State of New York Civ. Serv. Commn., 2015 NY Slip Op 04712, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) Did Not Have the Authority to Promulgate “Health Care Rules” and Mandate Deductions from Taxi Fares to Pay for Healthcare Services and Disability Coverage for “Medallion” Taxi Cab Drivers

The First Department determined the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it promulgated “Health Care Rules” and determined six cents per taxi-fare could be deducted for the purpose of providing healthcare services and disability coverage for “medallion” taxi cab drivers.

TLC’s “expansive mandate to develop and improve taxi and limousine service” notwithstanding …, we find that TLC exceeded its authority in promulgating the Health Care Rules … .

First, the record demonstrates that, in its attempt to establish a cost-effective structure for promoting driver health, TLC, motivated by broad “economic and social concerns,” was making policy, and therefore was “operating outside of its proper sphere of authority” … . Second, TLC manufactured a “comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance” … . TLC has certain delineated powers to ensure that drivers are capable of driving safely (see New York City Charter § 2300; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 19-505[b][3], [d], [h], [l]; 19-512.1[a]). However, nothing in the Charter or the enabling Code provisions contemplates the establishment and outsourcing of a miniature health insurance navigation and disability insurance department. Third, no expertise in the field of health care services or disability insurance was involved in the development of the rule (indeed, this is not TLC’s area of expertise), a fact highlighted by the lack of technical discussion at the hearings on the proposed rule amendments … . Matter of Ahmed v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04733, 1st Dept, 6-4-15

 

, ,

Length of Probationary Term for New County Employees Is Arbitrable Under the Two-Prong Test

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined the grievance concerning the length of the probationary period for new employees was arbitrable. The union contended the county had imposed a longer period of probation on a new employee than the 26 weeks allowed by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The county civil service commission, prior to the execution of the CBA, had adopted a resolution describing the period of probation for new employees as ranging from 8 to 52 to weeks. The Third Department determined there was no statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition to arbitration of the grievance. And the broad arbitration clause in the CBA covered the grievance at issue:

The threshold determination of whether a dispute is arbitrable is well settled. Proceeding with a two-part test, we first ask whether the parties may arbitrate the dispute by inquiring if there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance. If no prohibition exists, we then ask whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement. If there is a prohibition, our inquiry ends and an arbitrator cannot act” … .

To be sure, “[w]hen a county civil service commission, possessing the requisite authority, promulgates a rule establishing the length of a probationary term of service, that rule has the effect of law”… , and the public employer and the union cannot negotiate a contrary provision in a CBA. Here, however, the CBA executed by the County and the Union long after the Commission modified the probationary term is not inconsistent with the new Commission rule, as the probationary term negotiated by the parties falls squarely within the range promulgated by the Commission. Therefore, we discern no statutory or public policy bar to arbitration of the grievance in the first instance … . Hence, we are satisfied that the parties may in fact arbitrate the underlying dispute. As to the second inquiry, i.e., whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate this particular dispute, we note that the parties’ CBA contains a broad arbitration clause, which encompasses “any claimed violation, misrepresentation or improper application” of the CBA. In light of such language, we similarly are persuaded that the Union’s grievance falls within the scope of disputes that the parties agreed to submit to arbitration … . Matter of County of Greene (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Greene County Unit 7000, Greene County Local 820), 2015 NY Slip Op 04709, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Public Policy Bars a Cause of Action Against Government Officials (in their Official Capacities) for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The Second Department noted that an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action cannot be brought against a governmental entity.  Since the respondents were sued only in their official capacities, the cause of action was properly dismissed:

“[P]ublic policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity” … . Here, the individual respondents were only sued in their official capacities. Therefore, the petitioner could not and did not state a cause of action against them for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04645, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

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