You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

Penalty Which Effectively Made It Impossible for an Architect to Practice His Profession Too Severe

The First Department found the punishment imposed by the Department of Buildings (DOB) on an architect for falsely representing he was licensed during a six-month suspension from practice was too severe:

…[W]e find that the penalty imposed is excessive upon considering the following factors: DOB did not place any temporal limitation on the prohibition of petitioner filing documents, nor did it explain why such a permanent penalty was imposed; petitioner is a solo practitioner for whom over ninety percent of his business is in New York City; the prohibition applies to the entire city, and would essentially end petitioner’s independent architectural business, thus depriving him of his livelihood; and respondent has never alleged, much less made any showing, that the falsehood at issue pertained to the substance or content of the building plans and thus presented potential safety risks which Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-211.1.2 was designed to address… . Matter of Benlevi v New York City Dept of Bldgs, 2014 NY Slip Op 02396, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

,

No Private Right of Action for Unequal Pay Under Civil Service Law Section 115

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined Civil Service Law section 115 does not create a private right of action concerning unequal pay for the same work.  Rather, section 115 merely states a policy, unenforceable by the courts:

Civil Service Law Article VIII, “Classification and Compensation of Employees”, contains three titles, the first of which (Title A), entitled, “Classification and Allocation of Positions”, begins with section 115, “Policy of the state,” which provides:”In order to attract unusual merit and ability to the service of the state of New York, to stimulate higher efficiency among the personnel, to provide skilled leadership in administrative departments, to reward merit and to insure to the people and the taxpayers of the state of New York the highest return in services for the necessary costs of government, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to provide equal pay for equal work, and regular increases in pay in proper proportion to increase of ability, increase of output and increase of equality of work demonstrated in service.”

Courts of this State have routinely interpreted section 115 and its predecessor, the nearly identically-worded former Civil Service Law § 37, as merely enunciating a policy, conferring no jurisdiction on a court to enforce what is simply that – a statement of policy… .   * * *

It is clear that Section 115 is a preamble to Civil Service Law article VIII, and no private right of action flows from it. Article 14 of the Civil Service Law (the Taylor Law) provides the mechanism for represented employees to challenge alleged wage disparities between classifications. Matter of Subway Surface Supervisors Assn v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 02380, CtApp 4-8-14

 

, ,

No Credit for Civilian Service Under Post December 19, 1990, Tier 3 CO-20 Retirement Plan (Re: 20 Year Early Service Retirement)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that a corrections officer, a post December 19, 1990, member of the Tier 3 CO-20 New York City Department of Corrections (DOC) retirement plan established by Retirement and Social Security Law 504-a, was not entitled to an additional pension benefit based upon his three years as a non-uniformed civilian employee of the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Therefore, the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) properly did not consider the civilian service for the DEP in calculating the corrections officer’s pension benefit:

… [F]or post-December 19, 1990 Tier 3 CO-20 plan members, unlike the other participants in Tier 3 CO-20 plans established by chapter 936, only allowable correction service (i.e., uniformed service) counts towards eligibility for 20-year early service retirement … . Matter of Kaslow v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02324, 4-3-14

 

,

Appraisal Report Lacking Required Supporting Data Properly Struck

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly struck the appraisal report offered by the petitioner in an effort to reduce the assessed value of petitioner’s golf courses.  The report was struck for failure to include supporting data (required by 22 NYSRR 202.59 [g][2]):

Petitioner’s appraisal report employed the income capitalization approach …, which purported to establish value by capitalizing the anticipated net operating income from a single year by a market oriented capitalization rate. The appraisal report used as a key component income and expenses from two other golf courses, and this information formed the basis for the operating expense ratio. However, the identity of the other two courses used in compiling this information was not provided, but was listed as “confidential” since petitioner’s appraiser had ostensibly obtained the information when working for such courses. We agree with Supreme Court that this information was critical and, since undisclosed, ran afoul of 22 NYCRR 202.59 (g) (2) … . *  *  *

We further note that, even if the presumption regarding the assessor’s value is rebutted, petitioner still had the burden of establishing overvaluation by a preponderance of the evidence …, and we generally accord deference to Supreme Court’s credibility determinations in analyzing the appraisal reports, as well as its decision, so long as they are “not based upon an error of law or against the weight of the evidence” … . Here, Supreme Court set forth several deficiencies in the appraiser’s report and the appraiser’s testimony that caused it to reject petitioner’s contention regarding value. Matter of Bove v Town of Schodack, 516416, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

, ,

New York City Street-Sweeping Vehicles Are Now Exempt from the Rules of the Road Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (Subject to the “Reckless Disregard” as Opposed to the “Ordinary Negligence” Standard) But Were Not So Exempt in 2010 When this Accident Occurred

The First Department, over a dissent, determined street-sweeping vehicles, at the time of the accident in 2010,  were not “hazard vehicles” exempted from the rules of the road under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (apparently, under the Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation, street-sweeping vehicles are now so exempt:)

…Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b), which exempts “hazard vehicles” from the rules of the road and limits the liability of their owners and operators to reckless disregard for the safety of others …, does not apply to the New York City street-sweeping vehicle involved in the collision with plaintiff’s vehicle that gave rise to this action. Therefore, defendants are subject to the ordinary negligence standard of liability, not the reckless disregard standard on which their motion was based. At the time of the accident, in 2010, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) was superseded by Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-02, which excepted street sweepers, among others, from compliance with traffic rules to the limited extent of making such turns and proceeding in such directions as were necessary to perform their operations (34 RCNY 4-02[d][1][iii][A]). While subparagraph (iv) contained a broader exception, expressly invoking Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, we find that subparagraph (iv) did not include street sweepers because that would have rendered subparagraph (iii) redundant and meaningless. Indeed, when 34 RCNY 4-02 was amended, in 2013, the City Council explained in its “Statement of Basis and Purpose” that the effect of the adopted rule would be “that operators of DOT and New York City Department of Sanitation snow plows, sand/salt spreaders and sweepers will now be subject to the general exemption set forth in subparagraph (iv) of that same subsection” (emphasis added) — a strong indication that they were not so subject before then. Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 02221, 1st Dept 4-1-14

 

, ,

Untimely Demand for Reinstatement Warranted Dismissal of Action to Compel Reinstatement

The Fourth Department determined petitioner’s action to compel reinstatement in his job as a policeman was untimely.  Petitioner should have made a demand for reinstatement within four months of learning he was not being held responsible criminally or civilly for the acts of misconduct alleged against him:

“Where, as here, a public employee is discharged without a hearing, the four-month limitations period set forth in CPLR 217 begins to run when the employee’s demand for reinstatement is refused” … . “[T]he demand must be made within a reasonable time after the right to make the demand occurs or . . . within a reasonable time after [petitioner] becomes aware of the facts which give rise to his [or her] right of relief” … , and we note that the four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been “treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand” … . Here, we conclude that petitioner’s right to demand reinstatement to his position arose, at the latest, on or about December 6, 2011, when he received a letter from the District Attorney stating that he bore no civil or criminal responsibility for the acts of misconduct alleged against him, and that the matter would not be presented to the grand jury … . Nevertheless, petitioner did not demand reinstatement to his position until approximately nine months later, on August 31, 2012, well over the four-month guideline applied in Devens … . Thus, “it was [well] within the court’s discretion to determine that petitioner unreasonably delayed in making the demand” … . Matter of Norton v City of Hornell…, 256, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

, ,

Under the Unambiguous Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Plaintiff, a Retiree Who Was No Longer a Union Member, Was Not Subject to the Grievance-Filing Requirement and Could Sue Directly

The Fourth Department determined a retired employee was not required to go through the grievance procedure outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement because the unambiguous language of the CBA did not apply to retirees no longer union members:

In relevant part, the CBA defines the term “grievance” broadly as “a controversy, dispute or difference arising out of the interpretation or application of this contract.” The first step of the grievance procedure requires either the union or a “member” to present the grievance in writing. “It is well established that[,] when reviewing a contract, ‘[p]articular words should be considered, not as if isolated from the context, but in the light of the obligation as a whole and the intention of the parties manifested thereby’ ” … . Furthermore, we“must give the words and phrases employed their plain meaning” … . Elsewhere in the CBA, the word “member” is used interchangeably with the word “employee,” and several CBA provisions that apply to “members,” such as provisions for holiday pay and annual physicals, clearly affect only active employees. In addition, the CBA provides that the Village recognizes the union “as the exclusive representative for collective negotiations with respect to salaries, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment of all full-time and part-time employees” (emphasis added).

Giving the word “member” its plain meaning, and interpreting the contract as a whole, we agree with plaintiff that the word “member” means a member of the union. It is undisputed that plaintiff ceased to be a member of the union after his retirement. Thus, according to the clear and unambiguous terms of the CBA, plaintiff, who was no longer a “member” of the union when he became aggrieved, could not file a grievance. Buff v Village of Manlius…, 37, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

, ,

Requirements for a Negligence Action Against a Municipality (Based Upon Personal Injuries Allegedly Caused by the Actions of Police Officers) Explained

The Fourth Department, in affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant municipality in a suit based upon injuries alleged to have been caused by police officers, the court explained the law relevant to negligence suits against municipalities:

With respect to the negligence cause of action, it is well settled that, in an action against a municipality, it is “the fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care. Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to [perform certain governmental functions], this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created. This is an offshoot of the general proposition that[,] ‘[t]o sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally’ . . . The second principle relevant here relates not to an element of plaintiff[’s] negligence claim but to a defense that [is] potentially available to [defendant]—the governmental function immunity defense . . . [T]he common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions . . . [pursuant to which] ‘[a] public employee’s discretionary acts—meaning conduct involving the exercise of reasoned judgment—may not result in the municipality’s liability even when the conduct is negligent’ ” … .

With respect to the issue whether a special duty exists, it is well settled “that an agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public . . . Such a duty, . . . [i.e.,] a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff[,] is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . “A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . According to plaintiff, a special relationship was formed in this case by the second method, i.e., the voluntary assumption of a duty of care by the municipal agency. That method requires plaintiff to establish “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking … .

We conclude that defendants met their burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that there was no voluntary assumption of a duty of care, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the police officers who came to the house assumed, through promise or action, any duty to act on his behalf. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect to that requirement, we conclude that he also failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the fourth requirement, i.e., whether he justifiably relied on any such assumption of duty by the police officers … . Consequently, we conclude that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the negligence cause of action.

We further conclude, in any event, that the defense of governmental function immunity constitutes a separate and independent ground for dismissal of the negligence cause of action. That defense “shield[s] public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions” … . Here, defendants established that they were providing police protection and engaging in the investigation of possible criminal behavior. It is well settled that “[p]olice and fire protection are examples of long-recognized, quintessential governmental functions” … . Furthermore, “defendants established that the conduct of the police officers throughout the course of their interaction with [plaintiff] was undertaken in the exercise of reasoned professional judgment of the officers, and was not inconsistent with accepted police practice. Accordingly, such conduct cannot serve as a basis for municipal liability” … . Bower v City of Lockport…, 159, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Arrested Without a Warrant Based Upon Illegally Seized Evidence Granted Summary Judgment in False Arrest/Imprisonment Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his false arrest/imprisonment cause of action. Plaintiff was arrested without an arrest warrant based upon evidence seized in an illegal search:

“In order to prevail on a cause of action seeking to recover damages for false arrest or imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was aware of the resulting confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged” … . ” The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim'” … .When an arrest is made without a warrant, a presumption arises that it was unlawful, and a defendant must then show that a factual question exists as to whether the arrest was based on probable cause … . Evidence which is illegally obtained in violation of a plaintiff’s rights may not be used to establish probable cause … . Fakoya v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01709, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

,

County Not Entitled to Dismissal of Suit Seeking Refund of Taxes Declared Wrongly Collected by the Court of Appeals

The Second Department determined that the plaintiffs’ action seeking the refund of taxes wrongfully collected on “mass property” was properly allowed to proceed.  “Mass property” includes things like power lines, poles, transformers, etc. The defendants had been collecting ad valorem taxes on the mass property for garbage collection.  Ultimately the Court of Appeals held that such taxes could not be collected on mass property, which did not produce garbage.  The defendants argued that they were not obligated to refund the taxes paid and moved to dismiss on that ground.  In affirming the denial of that motion, the Second Department explained that the invalidation of the ad valorem tax did not meet the criteria for when a court holding should be given only prospective application in the context of taxation:

…[W]here a municipality has reasonably relied upon a widespread and longstanding practice … or a statute is later invalidated …, and where applying the invalidation retroactively would call into question “a settled assessment roll or property rights based thereon,” a court may exercise its discretion by giving its holding only prospective application … . Here, the County defendants’ submissions have not demonstrated that awarding the plaintiffs the refunds they seek would call into question settled assessment rolls or property rights based thereon. Keyspan Generation LLC v Nassau County, 2014 NY Slip Op 01721, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

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