You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

The Striking Down (by the Court of Appeals) of a Retroactive Zoning Ordinance Which Prohibited the Operation of a Landfill Did Not Require the Striking Down of a Subsequent Health and Safety Regulation Which Had the Same Effect

The Fourth Department determined that the striking down (by the Court of Appeals) of a 2005 retroactive zoning ordinance which prohibited the continued use of petitioner’s property as a landfill did not require the striking down of a 2007 health and safety regulation which had the same effect.  Because the two regulations are different in nature, the collateral estoppel doctrine is not available:

…[W]e agree with defendants that collateral estoppel does not apply here. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party’ ” … . The doctrine “applies only if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination” … . Here, the issue in this case—the legality of the 2007 Law as applied to plaintiffs—was neither raised by the parties nor decided by the Court of Appeals in Jones I. The issue before the Court of Appeals in Jones I was whether the 2005 Law was constitutional as applied to plaintiffs, i.e., whether the 2005 Law extinguished plaintiffs’ legal use of their land for the purpose of operating a C & D landfill on the entire parcel (see Jones I, 15 NY3d at 145-146). The Court of Appeals held that “the zoning ordinance at issue in this case [i.e., the 2005 Law], which restricted the development of landfills, does not apply to plaintiffs because they acquired a vested right to use their 50-acre parcel as a landfill for construction and demolition debris before the enactment of the zoning law” (id. at 142 [emphasis added]).

Although the 2005 Law and the 2007 Law both regulate landfill operations, they are not identical. The 2005 Law amended the Zoning Law to eliminate sanitary and demolition landfills as a permitted use in the AR-1 zoning district. The 2007 Law did not amend the Zoning Law to eliminate landfills in a particular zoning district but, rather, it enacted a Town-wide ban on solid waste management facilities. In concluding that the 2005 Law did not apply to plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals relied upon its [prior] decisions… . Those cases involve the nonconforming use doctrine, which shields vested property rights from the retroactive effect of zoning ordinances… .

The 2007 Law, however, is a health and safety regulation, not a retroactive zoning ordinance … . Unlike the 2005 Law, the 2007 Law does not “regulate[] the location of certain facilities within particular zoning districts” but, rather, it “generally regulat[es] the operation of [solid waste management] facilities in the interest of public safety and welfare” … . It is well established that “a municipality has the authority, pursuant to its police powers, to impose conditions of operation . . . upon preexisting nonconforming uses to protect public safety and welfare” (id.) and “may even eliminate [a] nonconforming use provided that termination is accomplished in a reasonable fashion” … . Jones v Town of Carroll, 2014 NY Slip Op 07780, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, ,

School Not Liable for Injury to Student Crossing Street to Enter School–Student Was Not In the Custody or Control of the School When He Was Injured

The Fourth Department determined that plaintiff’s son was not yet in the custody or control of the school when he was injured. Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was therefore required.  Plaintiff had dropped her son off across the street from the school, and told him to stay there while she directed cars to a parking area for an upcoming lacrosse game (in which plaintiff’s son was to participate). A teammate told the plaintiff’s son to go to the school to check in with the coach.  He was injured crossing the street:

…[I]t is well settled that “[t]he duty of a school district to its students is strictly limited by time and space and exists only so long as a student is in its care and custody” … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendants owed plaintiff’s son a duty of care under the circumstances here. When plaintiff dropped off her son and told him to “stay there,” she made a parental decision to keep her son across the street because she was concerned about him “crossing over” given that there was “lots of traffic” in the intersection where the accident occurred. Thus, plaintiff had not relinquished control of her son, and defendants had not yet gained the physical custody or control of him that is a prerequisite to imposing a legal duty on them … . The fact that plaintiff’s son disobeyed plaintiff’s directive and crossed the street does not change that legal result.

We reject plaintiff’s further contention that defendants owed plaintiff’s son a duty because the defendants placed plaintiff’s son in a “for[e]seeably dangerous setting that the [defendants] had a hand in creating.” Because the child was never in the physical custody or control of the defendants, however, the defendants were “never in a position to . . . release [plaintiff’s son] into a hazardous setting … . Ritchie v Churchville-Chili Cent School Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07792, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , , ,

The “Special Facts” Exception to the Retroactive Applicability of a Statute Does Not Apply/A Statute Cannot Be Interpreted to Render Language Superfluous/A Municipality Cannot Challenge the Constitutionality of a State Statute/Lack of Capacity to Sue Does Not Deprive the Court of Jurisdiction

The Fourth Department determined that a 2012 amendment to the Social Services Law (section 61) eliminated the requirement that counties be reimbursed by the state for certain medicaid expenses (so-called “Overburden expenses”) incurred prior to 2006, when the medicaid “Cap Statute” was enacted.  The court dealt with several issues, including:  (1) the retroactive effect of the 2012 amendment; (2) the effect of the amendment cannot be avoided under the “special facts” exception; (3) the amendment cannot be interpreted to render language superfluous; (4) municipalities cannot challenge the constitutionality of statutes; and (4) the lack of the capacity to sue, unlike standing, does not go to the jurisdiction of the court:

Section 61 clearly states that no further claims for reimbursement of overburden expenditures will be paid, notwithstanding Social Services Law § 368-h. Thus, the unequivocal wording of section 61 retroactively extinguishes petitioner’s right to submit claims for reimbursement of overburden expenditures made prior to 2006. “The retroactivity of a statute which is expressly retroactive, as here, will generally be defeated only if such retroactivity would violate due process or some other specific constitutional precept” … .

Here, however, in granting the cross motion, Supreme Court ordered that petitioner’s claims be “treated under Social Services Law § 368-a as [they] existed at the time that Petitioner incurred the Overburden expenses on Respondents’ behalf, pursuant to the special facts exception.” We agree with respondents that the special facts exception does not apply in this situation. Insofar as relevant here, that exception provides that “a court may deny an agency the benefit of a change in the law when it has intentionally or even negligently delayed action on [a claim] until after the law had been amended to authorize denial of the” claim … . There is no indication that resolution of the claims at issue was delayed until section 61 was enacted. * * *

It is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, a court ” must assume that the Legislature did not deliberately place a phrase in the statute that was intended to serve no purpose’ ” …, and must avoid an interpretation that ” result[s] in the nullification of one part of [a statute] by another’ ” … . Thus, “[a] construction that would render a provision superfluous is to be avoided” … . * * *

In its cross motion for summary judgment, petitioner sought, inter alia, judgment declaring that section 61 is unconstitutional because the statute deprived petitioner of due process by removing its vested rights. “[T]he traditional principle throughout the United States has been that municipalities and other local governmental corporate entities and their officers lack capacity to mount constitutional challenges to acts of the State and State legislation. This general incapacity to sue flows from judicial recognition of the juridical as well as political relationship between those entities and the State. Constitutionally as well as a matter of historical fact, municipal corporate bodies–—counties, towns and school districts—–are merely subdivisions of the State, created by the State for the convenient carrying out of the State’s governmental powers and responsibilities as its agents. Viewed, therefore, by the courts as purely creatures or agents of the State, it followed that municipal corporate bodies cannot have the right to contest the actions of their principal or creator affecting them in their governmental capacity or as representatives of their inhabitants” … .

It is equally well settled, however, that “[t]he issue of lack of capacity to sue does not go to the jurisdiction of the court, as is the case when the plaintiffs lack standing. Rather, lack of capacity to sue is a ground for dismissal which must be raised by motion and is otherwise waived” … . Matter of County of Niagara v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 07781, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, ,

Town Board Is Not a Necessary Party In an Action Against the Town—Acts of the Town Board Under Statutory Authority Are the Acts of the Town—Court’s Power to Join a Necessary Party Sua Sponte Noted (Not Properly Exercised Here)

The Second Department explained that, in a declaratory judgment action against a town challenging a local law, the town board is not a necessary party:

A “court may at any stage of a case and on its own motion determine whether there is a nonjoinder of necessary parties” … . “In a matter seeking a declaratory judgment challenging a legislative act, the legislative body that enacted the challenged law or ordinance is a necessary party” … .

In this declaratory judgment action against the Town of Huntington, challenging a Local Law enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Town Board), the Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the joinder of the Town Board as a defendant on the ground that it is a necessary party without which the action cannot proceed. However, a town board “shall be vested with all the powers of such a town” (Town Law § 60[1]) and “cannot and does not exist separately and independently from the town of which it is the governing body . . . [T]he acts of a town board when performed under statutory authority are the acts of the town” … . Accordingly, as the Town is a party defendant in this action, it was unnecessary for the court to have directed the joinder of the Town Board as a defendant … . Dish Realty LLC v Town of Huntington, 2014 NY Slip Op 07616, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No License Required

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that the installation of motorized window shades did not constitute “home improvement” and therefore plaintiff was not required to be licensed to perform the work.  If a license had been required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York, plaintiff would not have been able to recover under contract or quantum meruit:

“Where a home improvement contractor is not properly licensed in the municipality where the work is performed at the time the work is performed, the contractor forfeits the right to recover for the work performed both under the contract and on a quantum meruit basis” … . Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades in their condominium did not constitute “home improvement” work within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-386(2)…). Rather, the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades constituted decorative work, which was not “incidental or related to” the separate home improvement renovations being performed by other contractors at the defendant’s condominium (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-386[2]…). Schimko v Haley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07644, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

, ,

Provision of County Charter Requiring a Referendum to Amend the Drinking Water Protection Program Is Valid and Enforceable—Amendment Enacted Without the Referendum Is Null and Void—Both Individual and Organizational Plaintiffs Had Standing to Contest the Amendment

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court findng that: (1) the plaintiffs had standing to contest the amendment of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (DWPP) on the ground that the referendum required by the county charter was not held; and (2) the resolution enacted in the absence of a referendum was null and void.  The court noted the fact that the pleadings were not included in plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the reason Supreme Court denied the motion, was not fatal to the motion:

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. An action commenced by natural persons pursuant to General Municipal Law § 51 “may take the form of [an] action for a declaratory judgment” … . To have standing based upon their status as taxpayers, the individual plaintiffs were required to allege that the challenged act constituted a waste of or injury to public funds or, alternatively, that the challenged act was both illegal and “imperil[ed] the public interests or [was] calculated to work public injury or produce some public mischief” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged, in detail, that the defendants violated the Suffolk County Charter by enacting the Amendment in the absence of approval pursuant to a public referendum, and that this enactment threatened public funds expressly dedicated to protecting the drinking water supply in the County and lands in the Pine Barrens. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the enactment of the challenged amendment without a public referendum is illegal insofar as it violates the Suffolk County Charter, and that this enactment imperiled the public interest or was calculated to work public injury or produce some public mischief… . …

Although the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that they failed to submit a copy of the pleadings with their motion papers, we nonetheless exercise our discretion to reach the merits. Notwithstanding that CPLR 3212(b) requires that motions for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings, CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to “disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced” … . * * *

[The] provisions of the New York Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law do not prevent Suffolk County from adopting a charter provision like the one at issue here, which requires approval by a public referendum in order to amend or repeal the DWPP in the future (see Municipal Home Rule Law § 11[2][a]; § 34[4]…). Although the relevant charter provision requires a public referendum that is denominated as a “mandatory” referendum, that public referendum is not mandated by State law (cf. Municipal Home Rule Law § 23). Rather, the relevant charter provision constitutes the County’s mode of granting permission to the electorate to approve or disapprove, by means of a public referendum, proposed changes to the DWPP. Hence, the public referendum countenanced by the Suffolk County Charter can properly be characterized as a “permissive” referendum within the meaning of the New York Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law … . Long Is Pine Barrens Socy Inc v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 07633, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Entitled to Damages from the City—Plaintiff Had a “Special Relationship” with the City and Was Injured When a City Employee, Performing Ministerial Functions, Directed Plaintiff to Perform a Dangerous Task—“Special Relationship,” Which Gave Rise to a Duty Owed by the City to the Plaintiff, Defined

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion by defendant-city to set aside the verdict.  The city had been held responsible for plaintiff’s injury based upon the jury’s findings that there was a “special relationship” between the city and the plaintiff and the city-employee was performing ministerial, not discretionary, acts when he directed the plaintiff’s work.  Plaintiff was injured when the city’s plumbing inspector directed plaintiff to perform a dangerous air pressure test:

The Court of Appeals has recognized three situations in which a duty may arise by way of a special relationship: “(1) the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted; (2) the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally; or (3) the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Of the three ways that a duty may arise out of a special relationship, only the third is at issue on this appeal—whether the appellants took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the jury’s determination that the City and its inspector took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence … . Delanoy v City of White Plains, 2914 NY Slip Op 07615, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

“Notwithstanding Clause” in Contract Insulated Town from Liability for Bond Payments Re: a Waste Disposal Facility

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly resolved conflicting contract provisions by reference to General Municipal Law 109-b (2) which governs installment contracts entered into by municipalities.  The contract concerned the operation of a waste disposal facility which closed before the bonds used to fund it were paid off.  The insurance company sought payment from the town’s sanitary district. The court held that the clauses in the contract which insulated the district from liability for the payments (if the funds were not appropriated) were enforecable:

Consistent with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 109-b(2)(f), which applies to installment contracts entered into by municipalities, section 24 of the lease between the District and NCIDA states that:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, (i) this Agreement shall be deemed executory only to the extent of the moneys budgeted and appropriated and available for the purpose of this Agreement, and no liability on account thereof shall be incurred by the District beyond the amount of such moneys, and (ii) it is understood that neither this Agreement nor any representation by any public employee or officer creates any legal or moral obligation to request, budget, appropriate or make available moneys for the purpose of this Agreement.”

Such clauses are intended to be utilized as a shield against the imprudent use of taxpayers’ dollars, and not as a sword to divorce the State, for purposes of its own convenience, from a contract fairly entered into and honestly performed … . Nevertheless, “even though a municipality may possess sufficient funds to satisfy a particular obligation, such funds cannot be deemed available’ if the expenditure thereof would be improvident” … .

Here, although in its lease with the NCIDA the District promised to seek appropriations sufficient to make the lease payments, the lease also repeatedly stated that the District’s liability for payments was conditioned upon the appropriation of funds. Indeed, the District’s promise to seek appropriations was tempered by the provision stating that it was required to do so only “subject to the provisions of Section 24 hereof.” Since “trumping language such as a notwithstanding’ provision controls over any contrary language’ in a contract,” the Supreme Court properly relied upon this section as the basis for its determination … . Frankenmuth Mut Ins v Waste Mgt of NY LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07624, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

, , ,

City Was “United in Interest” with Non-Profit Corporation Which Maintained Central Park Pursuant to a Contract with the City—Therefore Plaintiff, Who Was Allegedly Injured by a Truck Owned by the Non-Profit Corporation, Could Amend His Complaint to Include the Non-Profit Corporation After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—However the Extent to Which the City Was “United in Interest” Was Dictated by the Terms of the Contract

The First Department determined that the Conservancy, a non-profit corporation which maintains Central Park under a contract with the City of New York, was “united in interest” with the City.  Therefore, plaintiff, who allegedly had been injured by a maintenance truck owned by the Conservancy, could amend his complaint to include the Conservancy, even though the statute of limitations had run.  The ‘unity of interest” was defined by the terms of the contract.  Because the contract did not call for the City to indemnify the Conservancy for gross negligence, the complaint against the Conservancy could not include the gross negligence claim:

… [P]laintiff relied on the 2006 Central Park Agreement, a contract between the City and the Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, in which they acknowledged that they had formed an effective “public/private partnership.” Under the Agreement, the Conservancy is required to provide specified maintenance services in Central Park to the “reasonable satisfaction” of the City, and the City is broadly required to indemnify the Conservancy “from and against any and all liabilities . . . arising from all services performed and activities conducted by [the Conservancy] pursuant to this agreement in Central Park.” The City’s indemnification obligation, among other things, expressly excludes claims arising from gross negligence or intentional acts of the Conservancy or its agents or volunteers. As a result of the Agreement, the Conservancy acts, in effect, as an independent contractor fulfilling the City’s nondelegable obligation to maintain the City parks in reasonably safe condition … .

The City is vicariously liable for the Conservancy’s negligence in the course of providing maintenance in Central Park by virtue of the contractual indemnification provision, and the parties are thus united in interest … . Further, since the City has a nondelegable duty to maintain Central Park, it is vicariously liable for negligence committed by the contractor in the course of fulfilling that duty … . However, the City is correct that its interests are not united with those of the Conservancy with respect to the proposed gross negligence claim, and leave to assert that claim against the Conservancy is therefore denied. Brunero v City of New York Dept of Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 07444, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

, ,

A Retired Police Officer’s Personnel Records, Including Records of Misconduct, Are Exempt from the Freedom of Information Law

The Third Department noted that records of personnel records of a police officer, including records of misconduct, are exempt from the Freedom of Information Law pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, and the exemption extends to retired police officers:

An agency may properly deny access to records that are specifically exempted from disclosure by state statute (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]). As is relevant here, Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) provides that “[a]ll personnel records used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of any police agency or department . . .[,] shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer . . . except as may be mandated by lawful court order.” Personnel records include documents relating to misconduct or rule violations by police officers … . Thus, if a document relating to an officer’s public employment may be used “in litigation to harass, embarrass, degrade or impeach [that] officer’s integrity,” then it is protected by Civil Rights Law § 50-a … .

Inasmuch as this Court has expressly ruled that a police officer’s personnel records continue to be exempt from disclosure after he or she departs from public service, we disagree with petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred by concluding that Civil Rights Law § 50-a applies to the records of [the officer] as a retired police officer … . Whether an officer “is no longer employed by [an agency] has no bearing upon the question of whether the requested records were or were not used by [that agency] to evaluate his [or her] performance” … . Matter of Columbia-Greene Beauty School Inc v City of Albany, 2014 NY Slip Op 07233, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

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