You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

Question of Fact Whether Board of Education Liable for Negligent Supervision of Violent Student

The Second Department determined questions of fact existed re: whether the school had notice of a student’s propensity for violent behavior.  The student allegedly held plaintiff partially outside a fourth-floor window at the school. The court noted that the city was not a proper party to the suit:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required, and “an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence” … . A plaintiff also must establish that the alleged breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained … .

Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the Board of Education lacked sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct that caused the injury … . The defendants’ motion papers reflect the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the Board of Education had knowledge of the offending student’s dangerous propensities arising from his involvement in other altercations with classmates in the recent past … . Thus, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action sounding in negligent supervision insofar as asserted against the Board of Education.  Mathis v Board of Educ. of City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02459, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

, , ,

Municipalities (Counties) Are Not “Persons” and Therefore Cannot Challenge a Statute on Due Process Grounds

The Fourth Department determined municipalities are not “persons” and cannot sue under the due process clause of the US or New York Constitutions to declare a statute unconstitutional.  Here the counties sought to have a law prohibiting reimbursement for certain Medicaid expenses (section 61) overturned:

Here, petitioners contend that respondents’ enactment of section 61 impermissibly deprived them of vested rights to repayment under Social Services Law § 368-a, in violation of their rights under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Similarly, article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Thus, the constitutional provisions share a common link, i.e., they protect a “person” (id.; see US Const, 14th Amend, § 1).

Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, we conclude that they are not persons within the meaning of the constitutional due process provisions. This principle was stated clearly by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which concluded that “[m]unicipalities cannot challenge state action on federal constitutional grounds because they are not persons’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause” (City of East St. Louis v Circuit Court for Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Ill., 986 F2d 1142, 1144). Other decisions, without using the term “person,” also support the conclusion that a municipal body may not use the due process clause to challenge legislation of the municipality’s creating state. Thus, “[i]t has long been the case that a municipality may not invoke the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment against its own state . . . A municipality is thus prevented from attacking state legislation on the grounds that the law violates the municipality’s own rights . . . Moreover, while municipalities or other state political subdivisions may challenge the constitutionality of state legislation on certain grounds and in certain circumstances, these do not include challenges brought under the Due Process . . . Clause[] of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . This is because a municipal corporation, in its own right, receives no protection from the . . . Due Process Clause[] vis-a-vis its creating state’ ” … . Matter of County of Chautauqua v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 02245, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

County Has a Duty to Protect Jail Inmates from the Foreseeable Assaults by Other Inmates

The Fourth Department explained the law concerning when a municipality may be liable for an assault by one inmate (in county jail) upon another.  The court also noted that, absent a local law to the contrary, the county may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the county sheriff or sheriff’s deputies:

We agree with plaintiff … that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion and dismissing the complaint in its entirety on the ground that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff, who was being held in jail on a pending criminal charge at the time of the assaults. It is well settled that “[a] municipality owes a duty to inmates in correctional facilities to safeguard them from foreseeable assaults [by] other inmates” … . “[T]his duty does not render the municipality an insurer of inmate safety, and negligence cannot be established by the mere occurrence of an inmate assault . . . Rather, the scope of the [municipality’s] duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable’ ” … . We therefore modify the order… by … reinstating that part of the first cause of action alleging that defendant breached the duty it owed to plaintiff to protect him from foreseeable assaults committed by other inmates. Villar v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 02229, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

, ,

No Notice of Claim Requirement for Suit Against Sheriff/Sheriff Can Be Liable for Negligently Training and Supervising Deputies/Whether Sheriff Entitled to Governmental Immunity Cannot Be Decided at the Pleading Stage

The Fourth Department determined no notice of claim need be filed in an action by an inmate against the county sheriff.  The court further determined the sheriff has a duty to keep prisoners safe, the sheriff can be liable for negligently training and supervising deputies who work at the jail, and the factual question whether the sheriff is entitled to governmental immunity could not be decided at the pleading stage:

Service of a notice of claim upon a public corporation is not required for an action against a county officer, appointee, or employee unless the county “has a statutory obligation to indemnify such person under [the General Municipal Law] or any other provision of law” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [b]) and, here, Erie County has no statutory obligation to indemnify defendant. Plaintiff “was not required to file a notice of claim naming [defendant] in his official capacity prior to commencing” an action against defendant … .

We further conclude that the court erred in determining that defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiff. Pursuant to Correction Law § 500-c, a sheriff has a “duty to receive and safely keep’ prisoners in the jail over which he has custody” …, and plaintiff’s first cause of action is based on an alleged violation of that duty to him. A sheriff may also be held liable for negligent training and supervision of the deputy sheriffs who worked in the jail …, which forms the basis of plaintiff’s second cause of action.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court properly determined that he is immune from liability because his alleged negligence arises from discretionary acts for which he is entitled to governmental immunity. In the context of this CPLR 3211 motion, the issue whether defendant’s alleged acts of negligence “were discretionary and thus immune from liability is a factual question which cannot be determined at the pleading stage’ ” … . Villar v Howard, 2015 NY Slip Op 02232, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City Did Not Have Written Notice of Defect in Tree Well Where Plaintiff Fell

The Second Department noted that NYC abutting-property-owners are not liable for the condition of tree wells within the sidewalk.  Here the city had not received notice of a defect in the tree well where plaintiff fell, therefore summary judgment was granted to the city:

A tree well does not fall within the applicable Administrative Code definition of “sidewalk” and, thus, “section 7-210 does not impose civil liability on property owners for injuries that occur in city-owned tree wells” … . * * *

“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 Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence; and (2) where a special use confers a special benefit upon the locality … . The affirmative creation exception is “limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … .

In order to hold the City liable for injuries resulting from defects in tree wells in City-owned sidewalks, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the City has received prior written notice of the defect or that an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]…). Donadio v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02093, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

Transportation-Contract Bidding Requirement that the Carrier Have an “Out of Service” Rate Less than that Required by the State Was Not Preempted by State Law/The Requirement Was Not Anti-Competitive Merely Because It Excluded Petitioner from Consideration—Analytical Criteria Discussed

The Third Department determined the county’s requirement that carriers bidding for a county transportation contract must have an “out of service rate” of less than 15% was not preempted by state law (which allows a 25% out of service rate) and was not “anti-competitive” because the requirement excluded petitioner from consideration.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

Preemption applies where there is “express conflict between local and [s]tate law” or “where the [s]tate has evidenced its intent to occupy the field” … . In the Transportation Law, the Legislature has indicated an intention for the state “to regulate transportation by motor carriers,” for both safety and economic reasons (Transportation Law § 137; see Transportation Law § 140 [2]…), and granted exclusive jurisdiction over safety regulations for motor carriers to the Commissioner of Transportation (see Transportation Law § 140 [8]), thereby preempting the field of safety regulations for motor carriers. Although the County’s RFB specification of an out of service rate exceeded the inspection pass rate in DOT [Department of Transportation] regulations, which provide that a motor carrier’s authority to carry passengers within the state may be suspended or revoked for an out of service rate of 25% or more (see 17 NYCRR 720.32 [a] [2]; see also Transportation Law §§ 145 [1]; 156 [2]), preemption does not apply under the circumstances here. * * *

General Municipal Law § 103 (1) requires that municipalities award purchase contracts above a certain monetary threshold to the “lowest responsible bidder” to protect the public’s finances and prevent corruption or favoritism in the awarding of public contracts … . Municipalities are permitted to include bid specifications that may be more favorable to some bidders over others, as long as the public interest is served and the specifications are not intended to ensure that one particular bidder be awarded the contract … . Including specifications in a request for bids often has the effect of disqualifying some potential bidders who cannot meet those specifications, but this reality does not invalidate those specifications. If a challenged specification is not facially anticompetitive, courts apply “ordinary rational basis review” in assessing its validity … . A petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the inclusion of the challenged specifications, and the ultimate award of the contract, was the product of actual impropriety, unfair dealing or statutory violation … . …

The County’s bid specification requiring an out of service rate of less than 15% is not facially anticompetitive, as that standard does not, in and of itself, guarantee the award of the contract to a particular bidder … . The bid specification here, requiring a safety rating higher than the minimum allowed by DOT for a motor carrier to continue operating within the state, does have some rational basis rooted in the public interest, namely, attempting to assure the safety of children being transported under the County’s care. Matter of Blueline Commuter, Inc. v Montgomery County, 2015 NY Slip Op 519277, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

, , ,

Extent of Court Review of Town Board’s Assessment of an Environmental Impact Statement Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Explained

The Second Department determined the Town Board had properly adopted the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FEGIS) and Findings Statement re: an airport master plan (dealing with noise).  The Second Department explained the court’s review powers:

Judicial review of an agency determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8; hereinafter SEQRA) is limited to determining whether the challenged determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or was the product of a violation of lawful procedure … . Courts may review the record to determine whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination … . ” [I]t is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively'” … .

Here, the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton (hereinafter the Town Board) fulfilled its obligations under SEQRA by taking a hard look at potential noise impacts of the proposed actions and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter FGEIS), which thoroughly analyzed noise data and potential noise mitigation based upon noise averaging methodology along with single event noise data.  Matter of Committee to Stop Airport Expansion v Wilkinson, 2015 NY Slip Op 01941, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Prior Written Notice Requirement Does Not Apply When It Is Alleged the Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department noted that the “written notice of a dangerous condition” pre-requisite for municipal liability does not apply when it is alleged the municipality created the dangerous condition:

A municipality that has enacted or is subject to a prior written notice statute, such as Village Law § 6-628 or CPLR 9804, may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defective or dangerous condition that comes within the ambit of those laws, such as an alleged defective boardwalk …, unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies … . The only two recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement are where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence, or where the defect resulted from a special use of the property by the municipality which conferred a special benefit on it … . Moreover, “the affirmative negligence exception is limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition'” … .

Where, as here, the plaintiff expressly asserted in the complaint or a bill of particulars that the municipality created the defective condition by an affirmative act of negligence, the municipality, in order to make a prima facie showing in support of a motion for summary judgment, must demonstrate that it did not create the condition … . Joyce v Village of Saltaire, 2015 NY Slip Op 01925, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Criteria for Amendment of Notice of Claim and Serving a Late Notice of Claim Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend his notice of claim and has motion to serve a late notice of claim were properly denied.  The criteria for both motions were explained:

A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim ,,, . The proposed amendments to the notice of claim added events that were not described in the original notice of claim and asserted a new claim relating to the operator of the bus … . Such amendments are not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . …

Among the factors to be considered in determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim are (1), in particular, whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after it arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim, (3) whether the claimant was an infant, or mentally or physically incapacitated, and (4) whether the delay substantially prejudiced the public corporation in defending on the merits … .

The plaintiff failed to submit evidence establishing that the Transit Authority had actual knowledge of the new facts within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter. Priant v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 01933, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, , ,

Mandamus to Compel Proceedings Properly Sought to Compel the NYC Housing Authority to Consider Requests for Increases in “Section 8” Rent Subsidies (A Ministerial Act), But a Particular Result Could Not Be Compelled (Because Exercise of Discretion Involved)

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that Article78/mandamus-to-compel proceedings were properly brought by owners of rental-properties against the NYC Housing Authority seeking rulings re: increased and suspended “Section 8” rent subsidies. The court held that the property-owners could compel the NYCHA to consider its requests (a ministerial act), but could not compel any specific result (an exercise of discretion).  The action was deemed timely because the NYCHA had never denied the requests, therefore the four-month statute never started running.  With respect increased subsidies, the court wrote:

An article 78 mandamus proceeding may be brought to compel an agency “to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law” (CPLR 7803[1]). It is well-settled that a mandamus to compel “applies only to acts that are ministerial in nature and not those that involve the exercise of discretion” … . Thus, “the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the relief demanded and there must exist a corresponding nondiscretionary duty on the part of the administrative agency to grant that relief” … .

Supreme Court properly found that the determination of the amount of any increase in the Section 8 subsidy is not purely ministerial but a matter entrusted to NYCHA’s discretion. An owner cannot receive a rent increase unless NYCHA first determines the reasonable rent (24 CFR 982.507[a][2][i]). In doing so, NYCHA is required to compare the unit’s rent to comparable unassisted units and must consider a myriad of discretionary factors, including location, quality, size, type and age of the unit, and any services, utilities and amenities provided (24 CFR 982.507[b]). Because the determination of the amount of any rental increase involves the exercise of discretion, it is not subject to mandamus. * * *

Although the eventual determination of reasonable rent will be the product of NYCHA’s judgment, the agency does not enjoy similar discretion to not make a decision at all on the rent increase requests. The applicable regulation, relied upon by NYCHA, provides that before any rent increase is allowed, NYCHA “must redetermine the reasonable rent” (24 CFR 982.507[a][2][i] [emphasis added]; see also 24 CFR 982.519[a] [under regulation relied upon by petitioners, NYCHA must annually adjust rent at owner’s request]). Upon the proper submission of a request for rent increase, NYCHA must process the request and come to a determination, whether adverse to petitioners’ position or not. NYCHA cannot leave petitioners in limbo, neither granting nor denying their requests, many of which have been pending for a significant amount of time. Thus, the petition states a claim for mandamus relief to the extent it seeks an order directing NYCHA to make a determination with respect to the rent increase requests … . Matter of Flosar Realty LLC v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 01906, 1st Dept 3-10-15

 

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