You are here: / Municipal Law
,

Court Should Not Have Summarily Determined Declaratory Judgment Action In Absence of a Request to Do So/The Mootness Doctrine Precluded Court Rulings on an Expired Contract/The Open Meetings Law Was Violated by the Town

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have summarily considered the declaratory judgment aspect of this hybrid action without a request to do so and without converting the proceeding to a summary judgment action.  The Third Department further determined the mootness doctrine precluded the Supreme Court from ruling on the provisions of an expired contract, and the town had violated the Open Meetings Law by holding closed sessions.  The action concerned the use of property for motorcycle events. Local property owners brought the action alleging that the events violated the allowed use of the land:

It is well settled that a court’s jurisdiction extends only to live controversies” …, and a matter becomes moot “unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the [claim] and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . Where, as here, the passage of time or “a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy,” the claim must be dismissed … . The 2013 agreement, by its own terms, pertained solely to Safety Track’s land uses and events that occurred during the 2013 track season and expired at the end of that year, thereby rendering the challenges to the 2013 agreement moot … . Further, we do not agree with Supreme Court’s finding that the exception to the mootness doctrine was satisfied… . …

In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . In the absence of a formalized motion requesting the “summary determination of the causes of action which seek . . . declaratory relief, it is error for [a court] to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … .

It is undisputed that there was no pending motion for summary disposition of the declaratory judgment action when Supreme Court rendered its 2014 judgment. Nor did the court provide notice to the parties that it was considering the summary disposition of the declaratory judgment action, such that the parties would be afforded an opportunity to further develop the evidentiary record and offer competent proof supportive of their respective positions … .

… Generally, “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [Public Officers Law § 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]). While a governing body may enter into an executive session, it may do so only for certain purposes, including, as is relevant here, the consideration of an appointment or to engage in private discussions relating to proposed or pending litigation (see Public Officers Law § 105 [1] [f]…). However, the body must “identify the subject matter to be discussed . . . with some degree of particularity”… . * * * As the Town failed to demonstrate that it comported with the relevant statutory provisions when conducting the instant executive sessions, such sessions were violative of the Public Officers Law … . Matter of Ballard v New York Safety Track LLC. 2015 NY Slip Op 01845, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

, ,

Negligent Highway Design Not Demonstrated/Plaintiff’s Amnesia Did Not Excuse Submission of Proof of Proximate Cause

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to county in case alleging negligent highway design.  Plaintiff’s vehicle left the roadway and went down an embankment, incurring traumatic brain injury resulting in amnesia re: the accident.  The complaint alleged there should have been a guide rail where plaintiff’s vehicle left the road.  However, there was a twenty-foot wide flat area between the edge of the road and the embankment. The court noted that the plaintiff’s amnesia did not excuse her from submitting proof of proximate cause:

“Municipalities owe a nondelegable duty to the public to construct and maintain their roads in a reasonably safe condition” … . While this duty includes providing adequate warning signs and guide rails or other barriers in appropriate circumstances, a municipality will not be held liable for a breach of duty unless the breach proximately caused the accident … . Accordingly, to establish a cause of action for negligent highway design, plaintiffs were required to provide evidentiary facts that could support a finding that defendant breached its duty to maintain the road in a reasonably safe condition, and that this breach was a proximate cause of the accident. * * *

Plaintiff’s amnesia as to the cause of the accident does not excuse her from submitting prima facie proof of proximate cause. In a proper case, an amnesiac plaintiff may be held to a lesser burden of proof as to proximate cause than a party who is able to provide an account of events … . However, that doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, the defendant has no greater access to the underlying facts than the amnesiac plaintiff … . Moreover, even when the doctrine applies, the burden remains on the amnesiac plaintiff to present prima facie proof of the defendant’s negligence to permit a jury to base its verdict on evidence rather than speculation … . This burden may not be satisfied by “inferences as to causation which are based solely upon speculation” … . As plaintiffs neither made an evidentiary showing that defendant breached its duty to construct and maintain the road in a safe condition nor that such a breach proximately caused the accident, summary judgment was properly granted to defendant on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish a cause of action for negligent highway design.  Lindquist v County of Schoharie, 2015 NY Slip Op 01852, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

,

Tax Exemption Properly Eliminated for Airplane Hangar Not Held for Public Use

The Third Department determined an airplane hangar, previously tax-exempt, was properly deemed taxable by the town assessor because it was not held for public use:

Where, as here, a municipality decides to eliminate a previously granted tax exemption, it has the burden of “‘proving that the real property is subject to taxation'” … . Faced with the burden of demonstrating that petitioner was not eligible for an exemption inasmuch as the hangar, as is relevant here, was not “held for a public use” (RPTL 406 [1]), respondents had to show that the hangar was not “‘occupied, employed, or availed of, by and for the benefit of the community at large'” … . That a private corporation “derives a benefit or that [a] county has leased the property to a private party does not by itself defeat the exemption” … . A determination that a parcel is exempt from real property taxation turns on whether it has a “‘public use’ . . . that enhances the health, education, safety, or welfare of the residents of the municipality” … .

The record reveals that the hangar is locked at all times and is not accessible to members of the general public; access to the bays is strictly limited to petitioner’s three members and parties who execute rental agreements with petitioner. Matter of Hangair, LLC v Hillock, 2015 NY Slip Op 01850, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

,

Time Constraints, In Workers’ Compensation Law 25, for Seeking Reimbursement for Compensation Paid by Self-Insured Employer Applied to Workers’ Compensation Law 30 As Well

The Third Department determined the self-insured employer waived its right to reimbursement for compensation payments made to its employee because it failed to make a timely claim under Workers’ Compensation Law 25(4)(a).  The court concluded that the wording of Workers’ Compensation Law 30 did not require a different result.  Section 30 was interpreted to include the time constraints imposed by section 25:

Here, the Board correctly determined that the employer was required to file timely requests for reimbursement, but did not do so. Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) provides that “[i]f the employer has made advance payments of compensation, or has made payments to an employee in like manner as wages during any period of disability, [the employer] shall be entitled to be reimbursed out of an unpaid instalment or instalments of compensation due, provided [the employer’s] claim for reimbursement is filed before award of compensation is made.” If this statute alone is applied here, the employer is precluded from recovering the full wages paid to claimant pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c because the employer did not file requests for reimbursement prior to the initial awards of compensation benefits for the relevant time periods … .

The employer contends that Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 applies instead. That statute provides that “any salary or wages paid to . . . [a claimant] under and pursuant to [General Municipal Law § 207-c] shall be credited against any award of compensation . . . under this chapter” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 [3]). To analyze these provisions, “the text of a statute is the best evidence of legislative intent and, where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Because these two provisions are related statutes in the Workers’ Compensation Law, they “must be construed together unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed, and courts must harmonize the related provisions in a way that renders them compatible” … . Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 25 and 30 both provide a right to reimbursement out of future benefits, with section 30 being more specific regarding the statutory basis for the wage replacement payments sought to be reimbursed. Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) additionally provides that the employer will waive that right if it fails to timely submit a claim for reimbursement. “If by any fair construction, a reasonable field of operation can be found for [both of these related] statutes, that construction should be adopted” … . A reasonable construction of these two statutes is to read them together and conclude that the right of reimbursement granted by both statutes will be waived if the employer fails to submit a timely request for reimbursement. Matter of O’Brien v Albany County Sheriff’s Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 01842, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

, , ,

Longevity-Pay Grievance Not Arbitrable Under Terms of Collective Bargaining Agreement/Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the grievance (re: longevity pay) was not arbitrable.  The court outlined the analytical criteria:

“The determination of whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable is subject to [a] two-prong test” … . “Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance” … . “If there is no prohibition against arbitrating, the court must examine the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and determine if they in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute” … .

Here, the County did not contend that arbitration of the subject matter of the dispute was prohibited by law or public policy. Thus, the only issue is whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute … .

“Unlike general labor disputes in the private sector involving arbitration, the intent to arbitrate of parties to a collective bargaining agreement in the field of public employment may not be presumed” … . “Indeed . . . it must be taken, in the absence of clear, unequivocal agreement to the contrary, that the [parties to a collective bargaining agreement] did not intend to refer differences which might arise to the arbitration forum” … .

Here, contrary to the Union’s contention, the CBA did not broadly provide for the arbitration of any grievance that may arise under the CBA … . Rather, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the CBA limited the availability of arbitration to specifically enumerated matters … .  Matter of County of Rockland v Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn. of Rockland County, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 01798, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

, , , ,

Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Is a Proper Basis for a General Municipal Law 205-a Claim

The First Department determined the alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a(3)(a)(1)  was sufficient to support an action by firefighters against the City pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-a.  Firefighters were injured and killed jumping from a building without personal ropes. The failure to provide personal ropes is the basis of the suit.  Governmental immunity did not bar the suit:

The City unavailingly contends that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) cannot provide a valid predicate for any General Municipal Law § 205-a claim. However, the statute, known as the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), which imposes a general duty on an employer to provide employees with “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees” (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]), is sufficient since it is ” a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties'” … .

Moreover, the City failed to “show that it did not negligently violate any relevant government provision or that, if it did, the violation did not directly or indirectly cause plaintiff’s injuries” … . There is evidence, including testimony and an investigative report, that the failure to issue personal ropes to the firefighters contributed to the injuries and deaths suffered when the firefighters jumped from windows using either no safety devices or a single rope that had been independently purchased by one of the firefighters. The City is also not entitled to dismissal of these claims pursuant to governmental function immunity, since the evidence concerning the removal of existing personal ropes in 2000, and the failure to provide new ropes in the period of more than four years from then until the fire giving rise to these claims, raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes “actually resulted from discretionary decision-making — i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stolowski v 234 E 178th St LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01732, 1st Dept 3-3-15

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE STATES THAT EMPIRE ZONE REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE TAX PAYER MAKES DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDITS EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM A MORTGAGE TAX ESCROW ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Tax Appeals Tribunal, determined petitioners’ were entitled to Empire Zone real property tax credits even though the tax payment were mortgage by Wells Fargo from a mortgage tax escrow account. The Tax Law requires “direct payment” to the taxing authority:

… [A]lthough Tax Law § 15 (e) (3) contemplates a “direct payment” of real property taxes from the lessee to the taxing authority, we find that, under the particular circumstances presented here, [the lessee’s] use of a mortgage tax escrow account for the payment of real property taxes did not preclude petitioners from claiming the subject [Empire Zone] real property tax credits. Matter of Balbo v New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 2018 NY Slip Op 05540, Third Dept 7-26-18​

TAX LAW (EMPIRE ZONE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE STATES THAT EMPIRE ZONE REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE TAX PAYER MAKES DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDITS EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM A MORTGAGE TAX ESCROW ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPIRE ZONE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE STATES THAT EMPIRE ZONE REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE TAX PAYER MAKES DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDITS EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM A MORTGAGE TAX ESCROW ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW  (EMPIRE ZONE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE STATES THAT EMPIRE ZONE REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE TAX PAYER MAKES DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDITS EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM A MORTGAGE TAX ESCROW ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT))/EMPIRE ZONE (EMPIRE ZONE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE STATES THAT EMPIRE ZONE REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE TAX PAYER MAKES DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDITS EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM A MORTGAGE TAX ESCROW ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) and Town’s Ruling on Proper Remedial Measures for a Hazardous Waste Site Was Restarted When a Different Factual Presentation Was Invited

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined that a recent reconsideration of the proper remedial measures for a hazardous waste site on petitioner’s property restarted the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s)/Town’s ruling, even though the conclusion reached after reconsideration was the same as was reached in 1995:

“[A] proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner (CPLR 217[1]). An administrative determination becomes final and binding’ when (1) the administrative agency reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury; and (2) the injury inflicted may not be significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party'” … .

In general, a request for discretionary reconsideration does not serve to extend the statute of limitations or render an otherwise final determination nonfinal … . This is because “[a] motion to reconsider generally seeks the same relief, and advances factual and legal issues that were previously litigated at the administrative level” … .

However, where “the agency conducts a fresh and complete examination of the matter based on newly presented evidence,” an aggrieved party may seek review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced within four months of the new determination … .

Here, a different factual presentation was invited … by the DEC, and conducted by the Town. Matter of Riverso v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 01644, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Termination of a Firefighter Runs from the Effective Date of Termination, Not the Date of Notification

The Second Department noted that the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination of a probationary firefighter ran from the effective date of the termination, not the date of notification of the termination:

“[A] proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]). Where, as here, a governmental employee is not entitled to a hearing in connection with his or her discharge, the limitations period for commencing a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that discharge “runs from the notice of discharge or the effective date of discharge, if later” … .

Here, although the petitioner was notified of the termination of his probationary employment by letter dated September 13, 2013, and was told not to report for further shifts, the notice set the effective termination date of the petitioner’s probationary employment as September 23, 2013. Accordingly, … the statute of limitations began to run on September 23, 2013. Matter of Bruno v Greenville Fire Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 01630, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Circumstances Under Which NYC Residential Property-Owner May Be Liable for a Sidewalk Slip and Fall Based Upon Efforts to Remove Snow Explained (No Liability Here)—No Liability for Incomplete Snow Removal

In finding that the property-owner (Gonzales) was not liable for an ice/snow slip and fall on the sidewalk abutting the partially owner-occupied three-family residence, the Second Department explained the circumstances under which such a property-owner’s snow-removal efforts might lead to liability, noting that there would be no liability for incomplete snow removal:

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a sidewalk abutting a three-family house owned by the defendant Maria Fe Gonzales. Since the subject premises were partially owner-occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes, Gonzales was exempt from liability imposed pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(b) for negligent failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk … . Thus, Gonzales may be held liable for a hazardous snow and ice condition on the sidewalk only if she undertook snow and ice removal efforts that made the naturally occurring condition more hazardous or caused the defect to occur because of a special use … . Unless one of these factors is present, Gonzales, an abutting owner of a three-family residence, may not be held liable for the removal of snow and ice in an incomplete manner … . Mullaney v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01519, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

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