You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

Town, Not the Town Board, Was the Proper Party/Town Could Not Use Article 78/Declaratory Judgment to Enforce a Contract/Town Entitled to Specific Performance of Contract

The Fourth Department, in the context of an action by the town for specific performance of a contract with a volunteer fire department, determined: (1) the town, not the town board, was the proper party to bring the action; (2) the hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action could not be brought by the town to enforce a contract; (3) the action should have been brought as one seeking specific performance; (4) the town was entitled to specific performance of the contract:

…[T]he Town Board lacks capacity to bring this proceeding/action.  As “artificial creatures of statute,” governmental entities such as the Town Board “have neither an inherent nor a common-law right to sue. Rather, their right to sue, if it exists at all, must be derived from the relevant enabling legislation or some other concrete statutory predicate” … . Here, Town Law § 65 (1) provides in relevant part that “[a]ny action or special proceeding for or against a town, or for its benefit, . . . shall be in the name of the town,” and that “[t]he town board of any town may authorize and direct any town officer or officers to institute, defend or appear, in any action or legal proceeding, in the name of the town, as in its judgment may be necessary, for the benefit or protection of the town” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our power pursuant to CPLR 2001 to correct that irregularity and to amend the caption by substituting the Town for the Town Board, “on behalf of” the Town … . …

… [A]lthough a CPLR article 78 proceeding may be brought against public or private corporations that “take on a quasi-governmental status” …, such “a . . . proceeding is not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights’ ” … . Moreover, a declaratory judgment action is also not a proper vehicle to resolve the contractual rights herein because ” a full and adequate remedy is already provided by another well-known form of action’ ” … . Pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), however, “[i]f a court has obtained jurisdiction over the parties, a civil judicial proceeding shall not be dismissed solely because it is not brought in the proper form, but the court shall make whatever order is required for its proper prosecution.” We thus exercise our discretion under CPLR 103 (c) and convert this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action to an action for specific performance … .

“Specific performance is a discretionary remedy which is an alternative to the award of damages as a means of enforcing the contract’ . . . The right to specific performance is not automatic . . . The equitable remedy of specific performance is available in the court’s discretion when the remedy at law is inadequate . . . Finally, . . . the party seeking equity must do equity, i.e., he must come into court with clean hands” … . Here, the Town met its burden of proving that it “substantially performed [its] contractual obligations . . . within the time specified in the [2011 Contract, and] that [it] is ready, willing and able to perform those contractual obligations not yet performed and not waived by the [West Brighton Fire Department (WBFD)]” …, and the WBFD failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition thereto … . Matter of Town Bd. of Town of Brighton v West Brighton Fire Dept., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02581, Fourth Dept 3-27-15

 

, ,

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

 

, , ,

Board of Commissioner’s Rejection of Hearing Officer’s Award of Supplemental Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence—“Substantial Evidence” Defined and Review Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the Board of Commissioners of the Greenville Fire District properly rejected a hearing officer’s recommendation that the petitioner be awarded supplemental benefits pursuant to the General Municipal Law. The court explained its review powers and the evidentiary requirements:

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence” … . “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of evidence,’ and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides” … . “When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists'” … . “Moreover, where there is conflicting expert testimony, in making a General Municipal Law § 20-a determination, a municipality is free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another'” … . “Thus, even if conflicting medical evidence can be found in the record,’ the municipality’s determination, based on its own expert’s conclusions, may still be supported by substantial evidence” … .

Here, the determination of the Board of Commissioners of the Greenville Fire District (hereinafter the Board), which rejected the recommendation of a hearing officer and denied the petitioner’s application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a(2), was supported by substantial evidence … . The Board was entitled to make a finding contrary to the hearing officer’s recommendation, as long as substantial evidence supported the determination … . The Board was free to credit the expert of the Greenville Fire District (hereinafter the Fire District) over the petitioner’s expert, as it did, so long as testimony of the Fire District’s expert was consistent and supported by the medical evidence … . Since the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, we confirm the determination and deny that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination … . Matter of Delgrande v Greenville Fire Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 02474, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Struck by Sled—Village Immune from Liability Under General Obligations Law

The Second Department determined the lawsuit against a village was properly dismissed.  Plaintiff was standing at the bottom of a hill when struck by someone who was sledding.  The hill had long been used for sledding:

The defendant (village) established as a matter of law that it was immune from liability pursuant to General Obligation Law § 9-103, which applies “to private as well as government landowners against claims for ordinary negligence brought by members of the public who come on their property to engage in certain enumerated activities where the land is suitable for those activities” …, including undeveloped areas of public parks (see Myers v State, 11 AD3d 1020, 1021). This statute also applies to a person who is injured when other individuals engaged in an enumerated recreational activity collide with the injured plaintiff … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Vannatta v Village of Otisville, 2015 NY Slip Op 02469, 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

 

,

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

 

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