You are here: / Municipal Law
,

Ordinance Making Abutting Property Owners Responsible for Removal of Ice and Snow from a Sidewalk Did Not Impose Tort Liability on Abutting Property Owner

The Second Department determined that an abutting property owner (Atlantic) could not be held liable for an ice/snow slip and fall on a sidewalk in the absence of an ordinance specifically imposing tort liability on the property owner, even where, as here, an ordinance made the property owner responsible for removal of ice and snow:

“Unless a statute or ordinance clearly imposes liability upon an abutting landowner, only a municipality may be held liable for the negligent failure to remove snow and ice from a public sidewalk” … . Although section 229-6 of the Code of the Village of Ossining (hereinafter the Village Code) requires a landowner to remove snow and ice from abutting public sidewalks, it does not specifically impose tort liability for a breach of that duty … . “In the absence of a statute or ordinance imposing liability, the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk will be held liable only where it, or someone on its behalf, undertook snow and ice removal efforts which made the naturally occurring conditions more hazardous” … . In their pleadings, the plaintiffs did not allege that the Atlantic defendants created the icy condition. Rather, the pleadings alleged that the Atlantic defendants were negligent in, inter alia, failing to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk. Since the Atlantic defendants established that section 229-6 of the Village Code did not impose tort liability upon them for a failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk, they demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Palka v Village of Ossining, 2014 NY Slip Op 05848, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

,

Memorialized Telephone Notification About Pothole Does Not Satisfy Written Notice Requirement—Inadequate Repair Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint against the village because the village did not receive written notice of the pothole which allegedly caused plaintiff’s injury.  The court noted that phone calls to the village about the pothole, even if memorialized in writing, did not meet the written notice requirement.  The court also noted that an inadequate repair of the pothole is not enough to demonstrate the village created the defect:

The plaintiff contends that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village received prior written notice of the defect, because the oral notice provided by residents of the street, including voicemail, could have been reduced to writing by an employee of the Village. However, Hempstead Village Code § 39-1 requires that “written notice of said defect causing the injuries or damages was actually given to the Village Clerk.” There are no provisions permitting other types of notice, such as a written acknowledgment of oral notice … . Therefore, a verbal or telephonic communication which was reduced to writing by the Village would not satisfy the prior written notice requirement … .

In Yarborough v City of New York (10 NY3d 726), the Court of Appeals noted that once the municipality establishes lack of written notice, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule —that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality.” A negligent repair of the defective condition is insufficient to establish that the municipality affirmatively created the defect … . To fall within the exception, the repair must immediately result in a dangerous condition …, which made the defective condition more dangerous than it was before any efforts were made to repair it … . Wilson v Incorporated Vil of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05861, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

, , , , ,

Sheriff’s (Lack of) Liability Under Respondeat Superior, Elements of Malicious Prosection, Abuse of Process, False Imprisonment and Libel Per Se Explained

In a lengthy and detailed decision the Fourth Department explained the negligence actions against the sheriff based on respondeat superior were properly dismissed, the action for malicious prosecution was properly dismissed (because the underlying criminal action was not dismissed on the merits and could be renewed), but the actions for abuse of process, false imprisonment, and libel per se should not have been dismissed.  The decision is too lengthy to summarize here, but it includes detailed explanations of the sheriff’s immunity from suit under respondeat superior and the elements of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and libel per se. The action stemmed from the allegation plaintiff was falsely accused of stealing a computer.  D’Amico v Correctional Med Care Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op -5737, 4th Dept 8-8-14

 

,

Contractor Was a Statutory Agent for the Owner for Purposes of the Labor Law Causes of Action

The First Department explained that a contractor (Bovis) with the authority to direct plaintiff’s work became a statutory agent for the city with respect to the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action:

…[T]he undisputed evidence established that Bovis was a statutory agent for the City since it possessed and exercised supervisory control and authority over the work being done … . ” When the work giving rise to [the duty to conform to the requirements of section 240(1)] has been delegated to a third party, that third party then obtains the concomitant authority to supervise and control that work and becomes a statutory “agent” of the owner or general contractor'” … . Bovis’s own superintendent testified that Bovis functioned as the “eyes and ears” of the City for the subject construction project, and it had broad responsibility under its contract to coordinate and supervise the work of the four prime contractors, including plaintiff’s employer … . Johnson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05698, 1st Dept 8-7-14

 

,

Allegation in Notice of Claim that Defendant Failed to Maintain a Stairway Was Sufficient to Encompass the Allegation the Handrail Was Obstructed and Could Not Be Used

In a slip and fall case, the First Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a notice of claim which generally alleged a failure to maintain a stairway in the vicinity of the second floor landing was sufficient to encompass allegations in the bill of particulars that the handrail was obstructed and could not be used:

Plaintiff’s claim that defendant failed to maintain the handrail along the stairway at or near the second floor may be fairly inferred from the notice of claim, which alleged that defendant was negligent in maintaining the second floor landing area … . The notice of claim alleged generally that defendant failed to maintain stairway “A” in the vicinity of the second floor landing, causing plaintiff’s injury. The bill of particulars merely amplified the allegations of negligence concerning the landing area by further specifying that defendant had failed to maintain the handrail at the landing area… . Thomas v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 05696, 1st Dept 8-7-14

 

, , ,

Negligence and “1983” Causes of Action Against the City and/or City Employees Stemming from the Alleged Failure to Provide Medical Assistance to a Rikers Island Inmate Reinstated

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were triable issues of fact concerning whether corrections officers breached a duty to protect the decedent, an inmate at Rikers Island, by failing to respond to decedent’s medical emergency.  The court also determined there were triable issues of fact concerning a 1983 action against one of the city employees based upon her alleged “deliberate indifference” to decedent’s “serious medical needs.”  The court noted that the 1983 action against the city, alleging deliberate indifference, was properly dismissed:

Dozens of eyewitnesses provided conflicting accounts regarding, among other things, the timing of the officers’ calls for medical assistance, and whether resuscitative efforts undertaken before medical personnel arrived were performed by the officers or whether other inmates took such measures in the face of inaction by the officers. Plaintiffs’ expert affirmation raised triable issues of fact as to the adequacy of the officers’ response and the soundness of defendants’ expert’s opinions. The City’s reliance on governmental immunity is unavailing, since there are triable issues of fact as to whether the death was caused in part by a negligent failure to comply with mandatory rules and regulations of the New York City Department of Corrections (DOC), requiring, among other things, that correction officers respond immediately in a medical emergency, and that officers who are trained and certified in CPR administer CPR where appropriate … .

The court correctly dismissed the § 1983 claim against the City. … There is … no evidence of a “policy or custom” evincing deliberate indifference to the rights of inmates … . “Deliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action” … . “Without notice that a course of training is deficient in a particular respect, decisionmakers can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights” … . Luckey v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05697, 1st Dept 8-7-14

 

, ,

Criteria Re: Counties’ and Foster Care Agencies’ Liability for the Acts of Foster Parents Explained

In dismissing a complaint against a foster care agency based upon the alleged failure of the foster parent to seek medical care for the foster child, the Second Department explained the relevant law:

Counties and foster care agencies cannot be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of foster parents, who are essentially contract service providers … .

However, counties and foster care agencies may be sued to recover damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home … . In order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it engaged in negligent placement and supervision, the appellant had to establish, prima facie, that it did not have sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the alleged dangerous conduct which caused the infant’s injuries … . In other words, the appellant had to show that the third-party acts could not have been reasonably anticipated … . Keizer v SCO Family of Servs, 2014 NY Slip Op 06630, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

,

Prejudice to County Investigation Stemming from Plaintiff’s Describing the Wrong Location of the Slip and Fall in the Notice of Claim Precluded Plaintiff from Amending the Notice

The Second Department determined that the failure to correctly describe the location of the slip and fall in the initial notice of claim prejudiced the investigation of the incident by the county.  Therefore, Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim:

A court may, in its discretion, grant a motion for leave to amend a notice of claim which has been served where it determines that two conditions have been met: first, the mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect must have been made in good faith; and second, it must appear that the public corporation has not been prejudiced thereby … . Since bad faith by the plaintiff was not asserted, the only issue presented here is whether service of the amended notice of claim would prejudice the County. The record indicates that the plaintiff’s incorrect information as to the accident location prejudiced the County in its ability to conduct a prompt and meaningful investigation of the accident site … . Murtha v Town of Huntington, 2014 NY Slip Op 05633, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

, , ,

Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)

In a case involving a pedestrian who was lawfully crossing a street when struck by an ambulance responding to an emergency, in the presence of a city employee acting as a crossing guard, the Second Department determined that ordinary negligence standards applied to the ambulance (not the “emergence” “reckless disregard” standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104) and that there were questions of fact whether the city was liable based upon a “special relationship” with the plaintiff and whether the city was liable because the crossing guard was performing ministerial, rather than discretionary, functions:

Failure to abide by the provisions set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111 (duty to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk) and 1112 (pedestrian has right of way), which was the injury-causing conduct at issue here, is not privileged conduct pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b). As the injury-producing conduct was not specifically exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the principles of ordinary negligence apply … . * * *

“To impose liability [upon a municipality], there must be a duty that runs from the municipality to the plaintiff. We have recognized a narrow class of cases in which a duty is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . One of the ways that a special relationship arises is when the municipality “assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty” … . * * *

Further, “[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 City defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the basis that the crossing guard’s actions were discretionary. Based on their submissions in support of their cross motion, and under the circumstances here, the City defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the crossing guard’s actions constituted ministerial governmental functions … . Benn v New York Presbyt Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05615, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

, , ,

In the Context of a Challenge to the Tax Assessment of a Home, the Town Must Obtain a Warrant Based Upon Probable Cause Before It Can Enter the Home (Over the Homeowner’s Objection) to Inspect it

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined that the Town did not make the requisite showing to justify an inspection of the interior of petitioner’s home.  Petitioner had challenged the tax assessment of her property.  Supreme Court had ruled the Town could enter petitioner’s home to inspect it.  The Second Department reversed, finding that Supreme Court improperly placed the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate why inspection should not be allowed.  The burden should have been placed on the Town to make a showing that a warrant allowing entry of the home was supported by probable cause:

We hold that the Town respondents bore the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to enter the petitioner’s home over her objections. The petitioner bore no burden, in the first instance, to demonstrate her right to preclude the Town respondents from entering into her home against her will. The right to be free from unreasonable searches is granted by the Fourth Amendment, and made applicable to the States and their subdivisions by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643), though this right is by no means absolute. By directing the petitioner to move to preclude the Town’s appraiser from conducting an interior appraisal inspection of her home, the Supreme Court improperly shifted, from the Town respondents, the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to enter into the petitioner’s home, to the petitioner to demonstrate her right to preclude the Town respondents from sending an agent into her home. We further hold that, based on a proper balancing of the Town respondents’ interest in conducting the inspection against the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the privacy invasion that such a “search” would entail, the Town respondents failed to satisfy their burden. * * *

Since the Town respondents sought entry into the petitioner’s home to have the Town’s appraiser conduct an inspection of the premises, the Town respondents were required to obtain a warrant upon a showing of probable cause. By directing the petitioner to move to preclude the Town respondents from conducting an interior inspection of her home, the Supreme Court improperly shifted the burden from the Town respondents to demonstrate their entitlement to entry into the petitioner’s home upon a showing of probable cause, to the petitioner to demonstrate her right to deny entry to the Town respondents … . “[B]y erroneously requiring [the] petitioner[ ] to move to preclude, the court did not properly evaluate the reasonableness of the inspections sought by respondents, i.e., the court did not conduct the necessary Fourth Amendment analysis balancing respondents’ need for interior inspections against the invasion of petitioner[‘s] privacy interests that such inspections would entail” … . Matter of Jacobowitz v Board of Assessors for the Town of Cornwall, 2014 NY Slip Op 05544, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

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