You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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

 

,

City Was Not Required to Consider the Petitioners’ Preferred Scenario for Development—City Was Required Only to Consider the “No Action” Alternative

The First Department determined the city (NYC) took the requisite “hard look” at a development project and provided a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its approval of the project. The court noted that, although the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) requires that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) include an analysis of a “No Action” alternative (an analysis based on the assumption the project will not be constructed), the CEQR does not require the FEIS to consider the petitioners’ preferred alternative development scenario. Matter of Residents for Reasonable Dev. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04560, 1st Dept 5-28-15

 

,

Lease and Lease Amendment Invalid Even Though Approved by County Legislature—County Charter Required that All Contracts with the County Be Executed by the County Executive—The County Executive Signed the Lease But Not the Lease Amendment (Which Was Integral to the Agreement)—Lease Required All Modifications to Be In Writing, So Signing the Lease Amendment Was Not a “Purely Ministerial Act”—A Municipal Contract Which Does Not Comply with Statutory Requirements or Local Law Is Invalid and Unenforceable

The Second Department determined that a lease and a lease amendment were invalid and unenforceable, even though the documents had been approved by the Nassau County Legislature.  The Nassau County Charter required that any contract entered into by the county be executed by the County Executive. The County Executive signed the lease, but not the lease amendment (which was integral to the final agreement). Execution of the lease amendment was not a “purely ministerial act” because the lease required that any modifications be in writing:

” A municipal contract which does not comply with statutory requirements or local law is invalid and unenforceable'” … . Here, the County demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the lease amendment, which was integral to the final agreement between the parties, was not executed by the County Executive or his authorized designee, as required by Nassau County Charter § 2206. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the execution of the lease amendment by the County Executive or his designee was not a purely ministerial act in light of the express language in the lease requiring any modifications thereto to be in writing … . Further, the express terms of the proposed lease provided that it could not be modified “except by a writing subscribed by both parties” (emphasis added), and the lease amendment expressly contemplated that it would be effective when “last executed by the parties.” Since the lease amendment was integral to the final agreement between the parties, and the proposed lease and lease amendment together constituted the entirety of the parties’ understanding of their obligations, the County established, prima facie, that the County Executive’s determination not to execute the lease amendment rendered the proposed lease unenforceable because there was no meeting of the minds between the parties … . County of Nassau v Grand Baldwin Assoc., L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 04445, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

, ,

Town Board Should Not Have Considered the Environmental Impact of Only One Small Part of a Revitalization Project, as Opposed to the Entire Revitalization Project, without Explaining the Reasons for Limiting Its Review In Accordance with the Requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act

The Second Department determined the town board did not complete the required review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in connection with an Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 207 proceeding to condemn certain land for drainage and storm water management improvements (drainage plan).  Even though the drainage plan is part of a much larger revitalization plan, the town board considered only the drainage plan in its SEQRA review, a limited review which can be done only if certain SEQRA requirements are met.  The matter was remitted to the town board for compliance with the relevant provisions of SEQRA:

…[U]nder SEQRA, the Town Board was obligated to consider the environmental concerns raised by the entire project (see 6 NYCRR 617.3[g][1]…). If, at this stage, the larger project is merely speculative or hypothetical, then the Town’s separate consideration of the drainage plan would not constitute impermissible segmentation … . However, the respondents are not claiming that the larger project is speculative or hypothetical. Moreover, to the extent that the Town Board concluded that segmenting the environmental review of the drainage plan from that of the larger revitalization project was warranted under the circumstances presented here, it was required under the SEQRA regulations to “clearly state in its determination of significance . . . the supporting reasons[,]” “demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment[,]” and to identify and discuss “[r]elated actions . . . to the fullest extent possible” (6 NYCRR 617.3[g][1]). The Town Board failed to do so. Since the Town Board failed to properly comply with SEQRA, the determination and findings must be rejected, and the matter remitted to the Town Board to undertake an appropriate review … . Matter of J. Owens Bldg. Co., Inc. v Town of Clarkstown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04487, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Seasonal Residents Properly Deemed “Residents” of a Town for Election Purposes

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined that seasonal residents of a condominium were properly deemed “residents” of the town where the condominium is located for voting purposes under the Election Law. The court noted that, under the Election Law, a voter may have two residences and choose one of them for election purposes. The Election Law requires only that the voter have legitimate, significant and continuing attachments to the residence and there be no “aura of sham:”

The [County Election] Board’s determination upholding the voter registrations at issue constituted presumptive evidence of the … voters’ residence for voting purposes; thus, petitioner was saddled with the weighty burden of proffering sufficient evidence to overcome that presumption (see Election Law § 5-104 [2]…). The Election Law defines “residence” as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return” (Election Law § 1-104 [22]…). As the courts of this state have repeatedly explained, the Election Law “does not preclude a person from having two residences and choosing one for election purposes provided he or she has ‘legitimate, significant and continuing attachments’ to that residence” … . “The crucial [factor in the] determination [of] whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham'” … . Matter of Maas v Gaebel, 2015 NY Slip Op 04353, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

, ,

Driver of Street Sweeper Which Struck Plaintiff’s Car Entitled to Statutory Immunity

The Third Department determined the driver of a street sweeper was engaged in highway work (re: Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103) at the time the sweeper collided with plaintiff’s vehicle.  Therefore the “reckless disregard for the safety of others” standard of care applied to the sweeper driver. The driver was working on a highway and had to make several passes to clean up spilled gravel.  Because it was a divided highway, the sweeper driver had to make a u-turn and return on the opposite side of highway to make another pass.  The immunity afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 applies only when actual work on the highway is being done, not when a worker is driving to or from the work site. The Third Department held that the statutory immunity was available here, even though the accident did not occur as the sweeper was engaged, because the driver was forced to use a circuitous route to complete the assigned task:

With exceptions not applicable here, the safety rules and regulations set forth in the Vehicle and Traffic Law do “not apply to persons . . . while actually engaged in work on a highway nor . . . to hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway but shall apply to such persons and vehicles when traveling to or from such hazardous operation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]…). If the person is “actually engaged” in work or a hazardous operation, the applicable standard of care is “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” but the exception does not apply where the person is traveling to or from the hazardous operation … . Matsch v Chemung County Dept. of Pub. Works, 2015 NY Slip Op 04374, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

, , , ,

Town Planning Board’s Approval of the Installation of Wind Turbines Should Not Have Been Reversed—Board Properly Considered All the Factors Mandated by the Land Use Ordinance and Supreme Court Did Not Have the Authority to Substitute Its Judgment for the Board’s

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board had properly issued a special use permit for the installation of wind turbines. The court noted that the burden of proof on the owner for seeking a special exception (special use permit) is lower than the burden for seeking a variance.  The court held that all of the analytical factors mandated by the land use ordinance had been properly considered by the board and Supreme Court did not have the authority to substitute its own judgment for the board’s:

The Land Use Ordinance permits specified uses in the area where the project is to be built and allows “[a]ll other uses” for which a special use permit is obtained. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, while the project is not allowed as of right in the district, the fact that it is “permitted . . . is ‘tantamount to a legislative finding that [it] is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood'” … . As such, “the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a variance, [with] the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use” … . The determination of the Board that those conditions had been met here will be upheld if it “has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record” … .

The parties do not dispute upon this appeal, and we agree with Supreme Court, that the Board’s findings with regard to six of the eight conditions enumerated in the Land Use Ordinance are supported by substantial evidence. The first of the remaining two conditions requires that the “[l]ocation, use and size of structure, nature and intensity of operations involved, size of site in relation to it, and location of site with respect to existing or future streets giving access, are such that it will be in harmony with orderly development of the district.” The second requires that the “[l]ocation, nature and height of buildings, walls, fences and signs will not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair their value.”

With regard to those two conditions, the wind turbines are almost 500 feet tall when the rotor blades are fully vertical [FN2]. Notwithstanding their size, the Board pointed out that the turbines are located in an area where high-voltage electric transmission lines have already altered the landscape, and noted that other factors minimized the impact of the project upon the viewshed. The project will have minimal impact upon traffic after construction is completed and, given the economic benefits that will accrue to participating landowners, the Board found that it would help to preserve existing uses of the surrounding properties. Moreover, the Board cited a study in the record finding that property values would not be impacted by the project. The Board also pointed to proof that the applicant had entered into setback agreements with nonparticipating landowners who resided within 2,000 feet of the turbines, further ensuring that the project would not impair the use of nearby parcels or development in the zoning district. Supreme Court pointed to conflicting evidence submitted by petitioners with regard to both conditions but, even if that evidence was properly considered, “a court may not substitute its own judgment” where substantial evidence supports the determination of the Board … . Matter of Frigault v Town of Richfield Planning Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04355, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

,

Installing, Pursuant to a Resolution, a Temporary Barrier to Address Traffic and Speeding Problems Did Not Violate the “Prior Public Use” Doctrine

The Second Department determined the town’s passing of a resolution installing a temporary barrier on a street to address complaints about traffic and speeding was proper.  Installing the barrier did not violate the “prior public use” doctrine because the barrier did not interfere with a prior public use:

The prior public use doctrine limits “the general grant of the power of eminent domain extended in Town Law § 64(2)” by prohibiting towns from “acquir[ing] rights in property already devoted to another public use where the acquisition will interfere with or destroy the prior public use” … . The subject breakaway barrier that the Town installed on Samuel Road did not interfere with or destroy the prior public use of Samuel Road. Accordingly, the prior public use doctrine is inapplicable, and does not prohibit the Town from installing the barrier … . Matter of County of Rockland v Town of Clarkstown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04314 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

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