You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

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

 

,

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

 

, , ,

Deeply Divided Court Reverses Plaintiff’s Malicious Prosecution-False Arrest Verdict and Orders a New Trial/Error Not to Allow Unredacted Autopsy Report Into Evidence/The Nature of the Evidence Necessary to Demonstrate Probable Cause to Arrest Was the Core of the Disagreement Among the Justices

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed a plaintiff’s verdict and ordered a new trial.  Plaintiff’s baby died a few weeks after birth.  The medical examiner concluded that the baby died of malnutrition that was not due to a detectable defect in her digestive system.  The plaintiff was charged with the baby’s death, but the charges were dropped about a month later. Plaintiff sued the city, alleging malicious prosecution and false arrest.  Both causes of action require a finding that the police did not have probable cause to arrest.  The probable cause determination was left to the jury (which concluded the police did not have probable cause).  The majority decided it was reversible error not to admit the full autopsy report, including the redacted conclusion that the “manner of death” had been “homicide (parental neglect).”  The dissent vehemently argued that the arresting officer had enough information, both from the autopsy report and his investigation, to conclude that the baby had been adequately fed and that, therefore, the jury’s finding the officer did not have probable cause to arrest was supported by the evidence. The concurring decision vehemently disagreed with the dissent, arguing that the arresting officer had probable cause as a matter of law:

From the concurrence:

“Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer warrant a prudent person in believing that the offense has been committed” … . “The evidence necessary to establish probable cause to justify an arrest need not be sufficient to warrant a conviction” … . And, as previously discussed, conflicting evidence as to guilt or innocence, and discrepancies in the case being built against the arrested person, while relevant to the prosecution’s ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, are not relevant to the determination of whether there was probable cause for an arrest … . Further, “when the facts and circumstances are undisputed, when only one inference [concerning probable cause] can reasonably be drawn therefrom and when there is no problem as to credibility . . . , the issue as to whether they amount to probable cause is a question of law” … . Since there is no dispute about either (1) plaintiff’s status as the infant’s sole custodian, (2) the contents of the autopsy report, or (3) the detective’s reliance upon the autopsy report in making the arrest and initiating the subsequently aborted prosecution, probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution existed as a matter of law. It follows that this case should not have been submitted to the jury and that the City’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted. * * *

From the dissent:

The evidence demonstrated that notwithstanding the conclusion in the autopsy report that the child died of malnutrition, the detective testified that two medical professionals who viewed the child’s body saw no apparent signs of neglect or abuse, found food in the child’s stomach, and concluded that she appeared to be well fed. Thus, there was no indication that plaintiff had either intentionally, recklessly or negligently starved the infant. The jury reasonably could have found that, at the time of arrest, there was no basis for a prudent person to believe that an offense had been committed. That is, that the mother did not act recklessly or negligently in feeding the child and/or not realizing that the child was malnourished, or did not in fact commit any offense whatsoever. * * * … [T]he contents of the report along with the other evidence did not provide probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that “it was reasonable, as a matter of law,” for the detective to discredit plaintiff’s account. Cheeks v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08764, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

, ,

Landlord Properly Granted Summary Judgment in Action Stemming from an Assault on Landlord’s Premises—Plaintiff Unable to Raise a Question of Fact Whether the Assailants Were Intruders, as Opposed to Tenants or Invitees

The First Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to the landlord in an action based upon an attack upon plaintiff on the landlord’s premises.  Plaintiff was not able to raise a question of fact about whether the assailants were intruders, as opposed to tenants or invitees:

A landlord has a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from a third party’s foreseeable criminal conduct … . In order to recover damages, a tenant must establish that the landlord’s negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the injury … . Where a plaintiff alleges that a criminal attack in a building was proximately caused by a landlord’s failure to provide adequate security, “[the] plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” (id. at 551). “To defeat a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff need not conclusively establish that the assailants were intruders, but must raise triable issues of fact as to whether it was more likely than not that the assailants were intruders who gained access to the premises through the negligently-maintained entrance” … . Applying these principles, no triable issue of fact exists here because there is no evidence from which a jury could conclude, without pure speculation, that the assailants were intruders, as opposed to tenants or invitees. Hierro v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op -8734, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Statutory Privilege Afforded Emergency Vehicles (Imposing a “Reckless Disregard” Standard for Accident-LiabilIty) Is Not Dependent Upon Whether the Emergency Lights and Siren Were Activated

The First Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the city in a case stemming from a collision with a police car.  The evidence that the police car, which was “performing an emergency operation,” stopped at a stop sign before proceeding into the intersection where it was struck by the taxi in which plaintiff was a passenger was sufficient to demonstrate the police officer did not act recklessly.  It did not matter whether the emergency lights and siren were activated:

As the police vehicle was an authorized emergency vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101), performing an emergency operation by “pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b), the operator was authorized to proceed through the red light, once it slowed down “as may be necessary for safe operation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [a],[b][2]). Thus, in order to hold the municipal defendants liable, plaintiff must demonstrate that the officer driving the police vehicle acted with “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” which requires a showing that he “has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … .

Here, the officer’s uncontroverted testimony was that he came to a complete stop prior to entering the intersection. That he looked in the direction of, but did not see, the approaching taxi did not render his conduct reckless … . That issues of fact exist as to whether the police lights were on (which plaintiff saw prior to the accident, but the taxi driver testified he did not), or whether the siren was activated, is not material, as a police vehicle performing an emergency operation is not required to activate either of these devices, in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of passing through a red light (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[c]). Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the officer driving the police vehicle lawfully exercised the privilege, and appellants have produced no evidence of any other facts or circumstances which would raise a triable issue as to any reckless conduct by the officer.  Flynn v Sambuca Taxi LLC, 2014 NY Slip OP 08723, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

, ,

Doctrine of Res Judicata Did Not Preclude Lawsuit Against Defendant Building Inspector In His Individual Capacity After Summary Judgment (In Defendant’s Favor) In an Action Against Defendant In His Official Capacity—Transactional Approach to Res Judicata Explained

The Second Department determined that summary judgment in favor of the defendant (Maikisch) in an action brought against a town and defendant in his capacity as building inspector did not, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, preclude a lawsuit against the defendant in his individual capacity. The court explained the analytical criteria:

This State has adopted the transactional analysis approach in deciding the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Under this analysis, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … . “It is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes. A pragmatic' test has been applied to make this determination–—analyzing whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage'” … . “One linchpin of res judicata is an identity of parties actually litigating successive actions against each other: the doctrine applies only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion'”

…[I]n the prior action, the plaintiff made no claim against Maikisch in his capacity as an individual. Rather, the plaintiff sought relief, in the form of a declaratory judgment, against the Town and Maikisch in his capacity as Building Inspector of the Town. “It has been repeatedly held that persons suing or being sued in their official or representative capacity are, in contemplation of law, distinct persons, and strangers to any right or liability as an individual, and consequently a former judgment concludes a party only in the character in which he was sued” … .

In any event, the differences which exist between the issues raised in the prior litigation and those raised now, namely, the differences in the kind of relief sought, in the kind of facts to be proved, and in the kind of law to be applied, outweigh the similarities to such an extent as to render the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable … . In the prior action, the plaintiff sought a judgment declaring that the subject property was exempt from certain land-use and building code regulations. There, the plaintiff alleged that, for reasons stated, the relevant regulations were inapplicable the subject property. In this action, the plaintiff seeks to recover money damages from Maikisch individually, based on contract and tort theories. In this action, the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Maikisch breached an oral contract between the parties, breached a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiff, and tortiously interfered with the plaintiff's business relations. Specialized Realty Servs LLC v Maickisch, 2014 NY Slip Op 08627, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Bicyclist Assumed Risk of Injury While Jumping His Bicycle Off a Dirt Mound on a Dirt Bike Trail In a Park

The Second Department determined plaintiff-bicyclist assumed the risk of injury while jumping his bicycle off a dirt mound on a dirt bike trail in a park:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a person who voluntarily participates in a sporting or recreational activity generally consents, by his or her participation, to those injury-causing events, conditions, and risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the activity … . Risks inherent in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, [the] plaintiff has consented to them and [the] defendant has performed its duty” by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be … . This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it … .

In support of their motion, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries by voluntarily jumping his bicycle from the subject dirt mound, and that the plaintiff was fully aware of the condition of the mound at the time of the accident, as he successfully jumped off the mound twice prior to the accident… . Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08406, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury

The Second Department determined a personal injury action was properly dismissed because the condition which led to plaintiff's injury (a five-foot drop from the top of a retaining wall to the sidewalk) was not the cause of the accident.  Infant plaintiff lost control of her bicycle, left the path, and was injured when she went over the top of the retaining wall and fell to the sidewalk:

Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the finder of fact …, “liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … .

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the defendant's motion, which included a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff, demonstrated that the accident was proximately caused by the infant plaintiff's failure to control her bicycle and the failure of the bicycle's brakes … . The retaining wall, which was erected a considerable distance from the portion of the paved pedestrian path from which the infant plaintiff deviated, merely furnished the condition or occasion for the infant plaintiff's accident, and was not one of its causes … . Any alleged negligence in the design, maintenance, or management of the retaining wall did not proximately cause the subject accident … . Rattray v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08416, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Succinct Description of Principles of Governmental Function Immunity

The principles of governmental function immunity were succinctly stated by the Second Department:

Under the doctrine of governmental function immunity, ” [g]overnment action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general'” … .

Here, the defendants Town of Clarkstown Police Department and Town of Clarkstown … established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the allegedly negligent acts of the police officers were discretionary and not ministerial … . Rodriguez v Town of Clarkston Police Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 08417, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

The Public Administrators of Two Counties Claimed the Authority and Jurisdiction for Letters of Administration Re: the Estate of an Incapacitated Person—In Resolving the Dispute the Appellate Court Discussed the Authority of a Public Administrator As Well As Surrogate’s Court’s Jurisdiction and the Decedent’s Domicile

The Second Department dealt with many issues which resulted from the public administrators in two counties applying for letters of administration re: the estate of an incapacitated person, a resident of Kings County who had moved from a nursing home in Kings County to a nursing home in Richmond County, where she died.  The administrator to whom the letters were issued first (Stein in Kings County) prevailed.  The court was asked to resolve many questions concerning a public administrator's authority, as well as questions concerning jurisdiction and domicile (not all of which are mentioned here):

Stein has exclusive authority to administer the decedent's estate pursuant to SCPA 704. That section provides, in part, that “[a] person who applies in good faith therefor, and to whom letters are first issued from a court having jurisdiction to issue them, has exclusive authority under the letters until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]). Here, letters of administration were first issued to Stein by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, and the record supports Stein's assertion that he had applied in “good faith” for letters of administration, without notice or knowledge of the petition filed in Richmond County (SCPA 704). Further, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack jurisdiction to issue letters of administration to Stein. Since the decedent was a domiciliary of New York State at the time of her death, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the decedent's estate (see SCPA 205 [1]).

…[T]he Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack personal jurisdiction over certain alleged distributees of the decedent. Pursuant to SCPA 1003(2), “[e]very eligible person who has a right to administration prior or equal to that of the petitioner and who has not renounced must be served with process upon an application for letters of administration” (emphasis added). However, “[w]here the right of the applicant for letters of administration is superior to the right of other persons interested in the estate, process need not issue and letters will be granted upon a proper petition and due qualification” (1-13 NY Practice Guide: Probate & Estate Admin § 13.08; see Margaret Valentine Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 1003 at 46-47). Further, SCPA 1001 mandates the issuance of letters of administration to the public administrator where the only known distributees of a decedent are “issue of grandparents, other than aunts or uncles, on only one side” (SCPA 1001[1][f][ii]). * * *

…[T]he county in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of her death is not determinative here. Since Stein had “exclusive authority” to administer the decedent's estate under the letters of administration issued by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, “until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]), improper venue would not be a valid ground for revocation of those letters of administration. “Since domicile is a waivable and nonjurisdictional concept, if a court mistakenly, without objection, exercises jurisdiction over the estate of a domiciliary of another county, its decree is not vulnerable to direct or collateral attack for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” (…1-2 Warren's Heaton on Surrogate's Court Practice § 2.12).

In any event, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, correctly determined that the decedent was domiciled in Kings County at the time of her death. The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act defines domicile as “[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return” (SCPA 103[15]). ” The determination of an individual's domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location'” … . “The law is well settled that an existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired,” and “[i]t is incumbent upon the party seeking to prove a change of domicile to demonstrate such a change by clear and convincing evidence” … . “To meet this burden, the movant must establish the decedent's intention to effect a change of domicile from her [or his] acts, statements, and conduct” (id.), and ” [t]he element of intent is essential'” … . Thus, generally, “an incapacitated person's admission into a health-care facility does not cause a change of domicile if the incapacitated person is unable to express an intention to establish a new domicile” … . Here, [the Richmond County public administrator] failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the decedent changed her domicile from Kings County to Richmond County, inasmuch as the record reveals that the decedent lacked the capacity to express an intention to change her domicile … . Further, the mere fact that [the guardian of decedent's person was] given the authority to choose the decedent's “place of abode,” does not warrant the conclusion that [guardian] had any authority to change the decedent's domicile … . Matter of Bonora, 2014 NY Slip Op 08425, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

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