You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

Procedure Under Civil Rights Law for Disclosure of Police Personnel Records Described

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to the audiotapes of interviews of police officers which were attached to a report about a high-speed chase that resulted in the death of plaintiff's decedent.  Plaintiff's decedent was killed when the vehicle the police were chasing crashed into plaintiff's decedent's house:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an action.” However, Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which codifies the standards for the disclosure of police personnel records …, provides that a police officer's “personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion . . . shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review . . . except as may be mandated by lawful court order” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a[1]). Prior to issuing such an order, the court is obligated to conduct an in camera review of the requested file, “and make a determination as to whether the records are relevant and material in the action before” it, and, upon such a finding “the court shall make those parts of the record found to be relevant and material available to the persons so requesting” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a[3]).

Here, the order dated March 22, 2013, indicated that the Supreme Court had reviewed “the reports sought . . . and all documentation annexed thereto” before concluding that there was “relevant and material” information contained therein (emphasis added). Accordingly, the plaintiff met his burden for compelling disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a, and the court properly directed the County to disclose the IAB report. However, we perceive no reason why the plaintiff should have been denied access to the audiotapes of the interviews which were identified in the attachments to the IAB report … . The plaintiff should be permitted to hear the actual interviews of the officers regarding the accident, and not only read the IAB report's summaries thereof, since the interviews were the main source material for the IAB report and were incorporated by reference therein … .

“The party opposing disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested information falls squarely within the exemption'” … . The County has not offered any explanation as to why the audiotapes should not be discoverable, especially since it has already disclosed all of the other source material identified in the attachments to the IAB report. Calhoun v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 09095, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action/Although Not Demonstrated Here, the Court Noted that Comparative Negligence Is a Valid Defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was impaled on an uncapped piece of vertical rebar.  (Although not the case here, the court noted that plaintiff's comparative negligence is a valid defense in a Labor Law 241 (6) action.):

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed … . The provision requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … . The particular safety rule or regulation relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards … . Comparative negligence is a valid defense to a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Here, the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]), which provides that “floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]). Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23.17[e][2]) is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) … . However, it has no application where the object that caused the plaintiff's injury was an integral part of the work being performed … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by showing that there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their allegation that the uncapped rebar was an integral part of the work that was not subject to the cited regulation …, or as to whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident … . Lopez v NYC Dept of Envtl Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 08963, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

2 1/2 Year Delay In Correcting Location of the Slip and Fall Described in the Notice of Claim Prejudiced the Defendant/Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice Properly Denied

The Second Department determined plaintiffs' motion to amend the notice of claim to change the location of the accident (slip and fall on ice and snow) was properly denied. Although the error was not made in bad faith, the 2 1/2 year delay in correcting the error prejudiced the defendant town agency:

Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), a court has discretion to grant leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the error in the original notice was made in good faith and where the other party has not been prejudiced thereby … . Here, while there is no indication that the error regarding the location of the subject accident in the original notice of claim was made in bad faith, the record demonstrates prejudice to the respondent, the defendant Town of Babylon Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter the Agency), as a result of the error. The original notice of claim misidentified the location of the accident as the “walkway/pathway” in front of 595 Smith Street, East Farmingdale, rather than the correct location, the “roadway/parking lot” at 540 Smith Street, East Farmingdale. Furthermore, the subsequent complaint, bill of particulars, photographs of the purported accident location, supplemental bill of particulars, and even a second supplemental bill of particulars served almost 2½ years after the accident, all of which continued to misidentify the accident location, failed to dissipate the prejudice to the Agency in its attempt to conduct a timely and meaningful investigation … . The plaintiffs contend that the Agency's ability to conduct a physical examination of the snow and ice condition that allegedly caused the injured plaintiff's accident was not affected by the error in the notice of claim, since that condition undoubtedly had changed by the time the original notice was served. However, the record reveals that the Agency's ability to investigate other aspects of the occurrence and to interview witnesses was hampered by the plaintiffs' delay of more than 2½ years in serving a third supplemental bill of particulars identifying the correct accident location and in moving for leave to serve an amended notice of claim … . Torres v Town of Babylon, 2014 NY Slip Op 08901, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Violation of Labor Law Can Serve as a Basis for a Damages Action by a Police Officer Against the City Re: Injuries Suffered on the Job

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined that a violation of Labor Law 27-a can serve as the basis of a damages action by a police officer injured while on the job.  Plaintiff officer was injured when she fell off a truck while loading wooden barricades:

With [the] understanding of the legislative intent to give broad application to GML § 205-e, we turn to defendants' challenge to plaintiff's cause of action for damages. To succeed on their summary judgment motion, defendants must establish “a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” … . For the reasons we discuss, defendants have failed to meet their burden.

In order to assert a claim under GML § 205-e, a plaintiff “must [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the [police officer] was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant's negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm” … . Defendants allege plaintiff cannot satisfy the first requirement because the Labor Law may not serve as a basis for her cause of action. We disagree.

As a predicate to her GML damages cause of action plaintiff relies specifically on Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1), which provides that “[e]very employer shall: (1) furnish to each of its employees, 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.”

Defendants counter that because [Labor Law 27-a] lacks a private right of action plaintiff cannot base her GML § 205-e claim on section 27-a. However, that is exactly what GML § 205-e permits and what the Legislature intended. While it is true that [the Labor Law]  does not contain an express private right of action …, GML § 205-e does not require that the predicate for a police officer's action contain an existing right to sue. Gammons v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08869, CtApp 12-18-14

 

,

Sheriff’s Deputy’s Driving During an Emergency Operation Did Not Rise to the “Reckless Disregard” Standard for Liability

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the sheriff's department because the conduct of the sheriff's deputy (Curry) involved in the vehicle accident did not meet the “reckless disregard” standard for vehicles involved in “emergency operations.”  The accident happened when the deputy made a U-turn because he noticed a police officer who appeared to be “having trouble with” a detained suspect:

“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (a) exempts the drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from the requirements of certain traffic laws when they are 'involved in an emergency operation'” … . This statutory qualified immunity “precludes the imposition of liability for otherwise privileged conduct except where the conduct rises to the level of recklessness” … . By statute, “[e]very . . . police vehicle” is an “authorized emergency vehicle” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (a) and (b) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101 [emphasis added]), and the fact that Curry's police vehicle was unmarked does not compel a contrary conclusion (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101…), although it may be relevant to the inquiry into whether he acted recklessly … .

We further find that Curry was exempt from certain traffic laws because he was engaged in an “emergency operation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 114-b, 1104 [a]…). Specifically, among other privileges, Curry was entitled to “[d]isregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [4]) and to “[s]top” his vehicle regardless of other traffic laws (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [1]). Thus, while U-turns were not permitted at this location, Curry was permitted to stop or slow his vehicle in traffic and to make a U-turn, provided he did not act recklessly … . The evidence is undisputed that Curry, having acted to assist an officer who appeared to be having trouble with a detained suspect, was undertaking an “emergency operation.”  Jones v Albany County Sheriff's Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 08895, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

, , , , ,

Privatization of a Mitchell-Lama Cooperative Housing Corporation Is Not a Taxable Conveyance Subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the reconstitution of a cooperative housing corporation [Trump Village], changing from a Mitchell-Lama corporation pursuant to the Private Housing Finance Law [PHFL] to a corporation pursuant to the Business Corporation Law, was not a conveyance of real property subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax [RPTT]. The NYC Department of Finance characterized the change as a taxable conveyance and was seeking over $21,000,000 in tax and penalties.  The Court of Appeals held that the amendment to the certificate of incorporation did not create a new corporation and that the amended certificate did not constitute a deed:

In support of their position that the privatization of Trump Village is a taxable event, defendants argue that an amendment to a certificate of incorporation is a “deed.” Defendants also assert that Trump Village is a new corporation and that there was actually a conveyance of real property to a different corporation, with Trump Village being both the grantor and grantee. However, defendants’ construction of the RPTT cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, even if there were any ambiguities regarding the application of the RPTT to this situation, “doubts concerning [a taxing statute’s] scope and application are to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer”… . Thus, we reject defendants’ strained interpretation of section 11-2102(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. …

Trump Village …, is the same corporation that was named in the original certificate of incorporation. The Business Corporation Law distinguishes between amending a certificate of incorporation (§ 801 et seq.) and formation of a corporation (§ 401 et seq.). Section 801 (14) provides that a certificate of incorporation may be amended “to strike out, change or add any provision . . . relating to the business of the corporation, its affairs, its right or powers . . . .”…

The PHFL provides that a Mitchell-Lama corporation “may be voluntarily dissolved” and “[t]hat upon dissolution, title to the project may be conveyed in fee to the owner or owners of its capital stock or to any corporation designated by it or them for that purpose, or the company may be reconstituted pursuant to appropriate laws relating to the formation and conduct of corporations”(PHFL § 35 [3][emphasis added]). Accordingly, there are two options for the process of privatization, and plaintiff chose the second option – – reconstitution through amendment of its certificate of incorporation [FN1]. Defendants posit that the legislature intended the word “reconstitute” to mean the same thing as “reincorporate.” However, as long ago as 1857, it was recognized that reincorporation “cannot be deemed the formation of a new corporation, but should be regarded as the continuation of the existing one”… . Trump Vil Section 3 v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08788, CtApp 12-17-14

 

,

Article 78 Is Proper Mechanism for Seeking Return of Property Held by the Police Department/Here Petitioner Was Not Entitled to Return of Firearm Not Licensed in New York/Firearms Owners’ Protection Act Did Not Apply

The Second Department determined that, although an Article 78 proceeding can be used to seek the return of property from the police department, the proceeding can not be used to seek the return of contraband.  Under the facts here, the firearm at issue was contraband because the petitioner did not have a license to possess it in New York, in spite of the fact the firearm had been legally purchased and possessed in California. In addition, the court held that the petitioner was not simply transporting the firearm through New York, an act protected by the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (18 USC 926A):

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (18 USC § 926A) was not applicable. “Section 926A permits a licensee, in certain circumstances, to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm'” … . The firearm owner must be actually engaging in travel or acts incidental to travel …, and during the transportation, the weapon and ammunition must not be readily accessible … . Here, the petitioner failed to establish that he was only engaged in travel through New York so as to invoke the protection of section 926A … . Matter of Khoshneviss v Property Clerk of NYC Police Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 08844, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

, ,

Complaint Can Not Be Deemed a Late Notice of Claim/Application to File a Late Notice of Claim Can Not Be Granted After the Statute of Limitations Has Run/City Is Not Required to Plead the Failure to File a Notice of Claim as a Defense/Participation in Discovery Did Not Preclude the City from Moving to Dismiss Based Upon Plaintiff’s Failure to File a Notice of Claim (After the Statute of Limitations Had Run)

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination that the complaint be deemed a late notice of claim against the city in a slip and fall case.  The court noted that Supreme Court did not have the power to accept the complaint as a late notice of claim, did not have the power to grant an application to file a late notice of claim after the statute of limitations had passed, the city was under no obligation to plead the absence of a notice of claim as a defense, and the city was not precluded from raising the defense by participating in discovery:

Here … the Housing Authority … was “under no obligation to plead, as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the statutory notice of claim requirement” … . “Furthermore . . . participation in pretrial discovery did not preclude [it] from raising the untimeliness of the notice of claim” … . In short, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the Housing Authority engaged in any misleading conduct which would support a finding of equitable estoppel … . Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the plaintiff relied upon any alleged act or omission of the Housing Authority or that such reliance caused the plaintiff to change her position to her detriment or prejudice … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve a timely notice of claim, and denied that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to deem the complaint to be a late notice of claim and to deem it to have been timely served nunc pro tunc.  Feliciano v NYC Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip OP 08807, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

,

Abutting Landowners Are Not Required, Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, to Remove Ice and Snow from Pedestrian Ramps—The Ramps Are Not Part of the Sidewalk

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department explained that pedestrian ramps are not part of the sidewalk and therefore abutting landowners are not required to remove ice and snow from a pedestrian ramp:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner” … . “However, pedestrian ramps are not part of the sidewalk for the purpose of imposing liability on abutting landowners pursuant to that provision” … . Stanziale v City of New York, 2014 Slip Op 08825, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

,

Code Provision Prohibiting the Placement of Signs on Public Property Is a Constitutional, Content-Neutral Restriction of Speech Which Was Severable from the Rest of the Code Chapter—There Was, Therefore, No Need to Assess the Constitutionality of the Entire Chapter (As the Appellate Division Had)

Reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined that section 57A-11 of the Town Code, which prohibited the placement of signs on public property, could be severed from the rest of chapter and was a valid, content-neutral regulation of speech.  The Appellate Division had held that section 57A-11, which was valid standing on its own, could not be severed from the rest of the chapter and that the chapter as a whole was unconstitutional because it favored commercial over noncommercial speech. The defendant here had pled guilty to violating section 57A-11:

“In a statutory context, our test for severability has been whether the Legislature would have wished the statute to be enforced with the invalid part exscinded, or rejected altogether” … . In Superfund Coalition, for example, the unconstitutional portion was at the “core” of the statute, and “interwoven inextricably through the entire regulatory scheme” (id.). By contrast, section 57A-11 deals only with signs posted on public property, a discrete regulatory topic and regime. This is reinforced by section 57A-11 (A), which explains the provision’s purpose and focuses entirely on the unique problems posed by signs on public right-of-ways. In light of section 57A-11’s independent legislative purpose, this provision can be severed from any unconstitutional portions of chapter 57A. We therefore need not and do not consider the constitutionality of any part of chapter 57A except section 57A-11. * * *

Section 57A-11 of the Town Code * * * imposes a content- neutral ban on all signs on public property, and applies to both commercial and non-commercial signs without consideration of their content. Further, it directly serves the Town’s valid interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, as expressly articulated in section 57A-11 (A). People v On Sight Mobile Opticians, 2014 NY Slip Op 08761, CtApp 12-16-14

 

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