You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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

 

, ,

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

 

,

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

 

,

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

 

, ,

A Police Report of a Vehicle Accident Involving Respondent’s Employee Was Not Sufficient to Alert Respondent to the Facts Underlying Petitioner’s Claim—Petition to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the petition to file a late notice of claim was properly denied because there was no showing the respondent school district was aware of the facts underlying the claim, there was no showing the school district was not prejudiced by the two-month delay, and there was no showing of an adequate excuse for the delay.  The petitioner argued that a police report describing a vehicle accident provided notice of the facts to the school district. But the report indicated only that respondent’s employee was involved in the accident, which was not sufficient to establish respondent’s knowledge of the facts of plaintiff’s claim:

For a police accident report to serve as sufficient notice to the public corporation, the public corporation must have been “able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the [employee of] the public corporation” … . A report which describes the circumstances of the accident without making a connection between the petitioner’s injuries and negligent conduct on the part of the public corporation will not be sufficient to constitute actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim … . The petitioners’ contention that the respondent had actual knowledge of their claim solely on the basis of the allegation that its employee was directly involved in the accident, without more, such as a report or record demonstrating that the respondent acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, is without merit … . Matter of Thill v North Shore Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 04332, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

,

Compliance With the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) Re: a Sidewalk Vault Cover Did Not Override Cable Company’s General Duty Not to Create a Hazardous Condition

Plaintiff tripped on a sidewalk in front of defendant’s (Palm Beach’s) property in the vicinity of a vault cover installed by defendant cable company (Cablevision).  The Second Department determined the causes of action against both defendants properly survived summary judgment. There was no showing Palm Beach did not have constructive notice of the condition. Cablevision argued that dismissal was warranted because it had complied with the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) concerning sidewalk installations.  Supreme Court properly held that the duties imposed by the regulations were in addition to the generally duty not to create a hazardous condition:

Contrary to the contention of the Cablevision defendants, they cannot be absolved of such liability by either the “guarantee period” set forth in 34 RCNY 2-11(e)(16)(ii) (“Permittees shall be responsible for permanent restoration and maintenance of street openings and excavations for a period of three years on unprotected streets”) or the 12-inch rule set forth in 34 RCNY 2-07(b)(1) and (2) (requiring owners of covers or gratings to “monitor[ ] the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending twelve inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware” and to “replace or repair” any defective cover or grating and any defective street condition found within twelve inches of the cover or grating). As the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the regulations relied on by the Cablevision defendants impose upon them a duty to maintain their vault and the surrounding area that is separate from, and in addition to, their duty not to create hazardous conditions … . Shehata v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04305, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

,

In Order for a Municipality to Be Liable for the Creation of a Dangerous Condition, the Dangerous Condition Must Result Immediately from the Negligent Act—Here the Allegation the Dangerous Condition Developed Over a Period of Years Was Not Sufficient

The Second Department noted that the “prior written notice” requirement (as a prerequisite for municipal liability for a dangerous condition) is independent of any actual or constructive notice of a defect.  Although there is an exception to the “prior written notice” requirement where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence, that act of negligence must immediately result in the existence of a dangerous condition. It is not sufficient to allege that the defect developed over a period of years (here allegedly stemming from work done in 2008):

“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” … . A defendant’s actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition does not satisfy the prior written notice requirement … . Further, although an exception to the prior written notice requirement exists where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence …, that exception “[is] limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition”… . DeVita v Town of Brookhaven, 2015 NY Slip Op 04086, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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