You are here: / Municipal Law
,

Application to File Late Notice of Claim (One Month Late) on Behalf of Infant Claimant Injured at School Should Not Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted claimants’ application to file a late notice of claim against a school district.  Claimant alleged infant claimant (Zachary) was injured playing touch football and the school did not provide adequate supervision.  In finding the criteria for allowing the filing of a late notice were not met, the court wrote:

The key factors to be considered in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim are (1) whether the claimant or claimants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely serve a notice of claim, (2) whether one or more of the claimants was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the infancy and the delay in service of a notice of claim, (3) whether the school district acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) whether the school district was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits

Here, Zachary and his mother did not proffer sufficient proof to establish a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon the appellant … . Furthermore, Zachary’s infancy, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … . In addition, while a school official prepared an accident claim form the day of the incident and a school medical claim form was filled out the day following the incident, those reports, which merely indicated that Zachary hurt his right knee playing two-hand touch football during physical education class, did not establish that the appellant had actual knowledge within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter, of the essential facts underlying the claims of negligent supervision and that the school field constituted a defective and dangerous condition … . Accordingly, the appellant had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligent supervision and the alleged dangerous condition of the field … . Finally, Zachary and his mother failed to establish that the approximately one-month delay after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining a defense on the merits … . Matter of Manuel v Riverhead Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 02939, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

Same result in claim against a fire district alleging medical malpractice and negligence in response to an accident.  Matter of Snyder v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 02942, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

New Paltz Local Wetlands Law Should Not Have Been Annulled

The Third Department, in a lengthy and detailed decision, reversed Supreme Court’s annulment of a Local Law enacted by the Town of New Paltz.  The law was enacted to prevent the “despoliation and destruction of wetlands.”  The court determined, among other issues, the town board had acted in compliance with the State Environental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the law was not unconsitutionally vague, and the law was not preempted by other laws.  The  court described the “hard look” required by SEQRA, as well as the court’s review-role, as follows:

Initially, respondents contend that Supreme Court erred in concluding that the Board failed to take the “hard look” required by SEQRA before concluding that an environmental impact statement (hereinafter EIS) was not required. SEQRA requires an EIS when an agency action “may have a significant effect on the environment,” and such an impact is presumed to be likely where, as here, a type I action is involved (ECL 8-0109 [2]… 6 NYCRR 617.4 [a] [1]); however, a type I action does not, “per se, necessitate the filing of an [EIS]” … . A negative declaration may be issued, obviating the need for an EIS, if the lead agency — here, the Board — determines that “no adverse environmental impacts [will result] or that the identified adverse environmental impacts will not be significant” (6 NYCRR 617.7 [a] [2]…). Upon judicial review, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Board, and may annul its decision “only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence” … . Matter of Gabrielli v Town of New Paltz, 2014 NY Slip Op 02826, Third Dept 4-24-14

 

,

Allegation that Town Planted a Tree Near a Sidewalk and Did Not Maintain the Roots, Thereby Creating a Dangerous Condition, Is an Allegation of “Nonfeasance,” not an “Affirmative Act of Negligence”

The Second Department determined an allegation that a municipality planted a tree near a sidewalk and failed to maintain the tree roots did not support a negligence action based upon the creation of a dangerous condition:

…[T]he plaintiff alleged in his notice of claim, complaint, and bill of particulars that the Town affirmatively created the subject dangerous condition through various specified acts of negligence. “[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . The Supreme Court, in denying the Town’s motion, concluded that it failed to meet its prima facie burden since it did not demonstrate that it did not affirmatively create the condition alleged. However, the Supreme Court erred in so concluding. The evidence submitted in support of the motion established that the planting of a tree or trees adjacent to the sidewalk where the accident occurred, and the alleged failure to maintain the roots of the tree or trees, would at most constitute nonfeasance, not affirmative negligence … . In opposition, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants …raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town created the condition alleged through an affirmative act of negligence. Lipari v Town of Oyster Bay, 2014 NY Slip Op 02755, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Abutting Landowners’ Responsibilties for Sidewalk Defects and Defects Relating to Covers and Gratings Explained

The Second Department explained the New York City law applicable to the responsibilty of abutting landowners with respect to sidewalks, and with respect to covers or gratings within or near the sidewalks:

…[L]iability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner … . However, an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a sidewalk where the landowner created the defect, caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk … . Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which was in effect at the time of the accident, shifts liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . Legislative enactments in derogation of the common law which create liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed … . Hence, while section 7-210 expressly shifts tort liability to the abutting property owner for injuries proximately caused by the owner’s failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, it does not supersede pre-existing regulations such as 34 RCNY 2-07(b), which provides that “owners of covers or gratings on a street are responsible for monitoring the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending twelve inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware” (34 RCNY 2-07[b][1]…).  Roman v Bob’s Discount Furniture of NY LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02762, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

, ,

Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)

The Second Department determined plaintiffs, who were injured when assaulted by NYC firefighters in a restaurant, had made allegations against the city and the fire department which raised questions of fact about negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. The firefighters, including supervisors, had just come from a New York City Fire Department annual dinner held at another restaurant.  Apparently two firefighters (Reilly and Warnock) attacked the plaintiffs after a drink had been accidentally spilled on a firefighter. The court explained that the doctrine of respondeat superior would not apply because the firefighters were not acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the assault.  But the court determined the causes of action against the City defendants for negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention could go forward!

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment. Pursuant to this doctrine, the employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business'” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Where, however, an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, the actions cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment … . In instances where vicarious liability for an employee’s torts cannot be imposed upon an employer, a direct cause of action against the employer for its own conduct, be it negligent hiring, supervision, or other negligence, may still be maintained … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the City defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging vicarious liability. The City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the tortious conduct of Reilly and Warnock was not within the scope of their employment … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . However, as to the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, the City defendants did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that they did not know or have reason to know of Reilly’s or Warnock’s alleged propensity for assaultive conduct … . Furthermore, the City defendants failed to submit evidence demonstrating that any such alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs’ injuries … . Selmani City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02764, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty

The Second Department determined that the town code provisions cited by plaintiffs did not impose a duty upon property owners to prevent vegetation from obstructing the view of drivers on a public road:

A property owner has no common-law duty to prevent vegetation growing on its property from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway … . Although such a duty may be imposed by a specific regulatory provision …, the ordinances … defendants allegedly violated, Code of the Town of Clarkstown §§ 216-4 and 250-6, were not intended to protect motorists from the hazards of vegetation which obstruct views at intersections of streets and driveways … . Accordingly, alleged noncompliance with the subject ordinances may not give rise to tort liability… . Preux v Dennis, 2014 NY Slip Op 02763, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Explicit Terms of the Controlling Statute Required that Petitioner Be a Party to a Written Agreement In Order to Be Eligible for an Empire Zone Tax Credit/Therefore, Even though Petitioner Made the Required “Payment In Lieu of Taxes” Pursuant to a Sublease from a Party to the Agreement, Petitioner Was Not Eligible for the Credit

The Third Department determined the controlling statute required a written agreement between a qualified empire zone enterprise (QEZE) and the Town of Rotterdam Industrial Development Agency (IDA)  in order to be eligible for an empire zone tax credit.  Because the petitioner was not a party to the “payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT)” agreement, the tax credit was not available to it, even though the petitioner made the PILOT payments pursuant to a sublease from a party to the agreement (FM Ventures):

For the tax years in dispute, Tax Law former § 15 (e) set forth three types of payments that constituted eligible real property taxes for purposes of an empire zone credit. Two involved payment of taxes; first, by a QEZE that owned the real property and, second, a QEZE that was a lessee of real property. The third applied to petitioner’s situation since it addressed PILOT payments by a QEZE. It provided in relevant part: “In addition, the term ‘eligible real property taxes’ includes [PILOTs] made by the QEZE to the state, a municipal corporation or a public benefit corporation pursuant to a written agreement entered into between the QEZE and the state, municipal corporation, or public benefit corporation” (Tax Law former § 15 [e] [emphasis added]).

The pertinent language affirmatively requires in clear terms that, to qualify for the credit under such provision, the PILOT payments must be made pursuant to a written agreement between the QEZE and the appropriate entity. Here, FM Ventures had entered into the August 2005 PILOT agreement with the IDA. Petitioner was not a party to that agreement. Although petitioner’s separate agreement with FM Ventures provided that petitioner would make the payments and the various entities may have desired to structure the transactions so that petitioner could receive the empire zone tax credit, unfortunately petitioner’s PILOT payments do not qualify for such credit under the statutory language. It was petitioner’s burden to show that it was clearly entitled to the credit and, in fact, the statute manifestly provides otherwise. We cannot, under long settled principles of statutory interpretation, essentially rewrite an unambiguous provision of a statute by ignoring explicit language, no matter how equitable such a result may appear … . Matter of Golub Corp v New York State Tax Appeals Trib, 2014 NY Slip Op 02638, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Obstruction of View of Stop Sign by Vegetation Not Actionable Against the Town Without Allegation Town Had Prior Written Notice of the Obstruction

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed the cause of action against the Town of Oyster Bay which alleged vegetation had been allowed to obstruct a stop sign (leading to a collision).  The prior written notice requirement applied and the plaintiffs did not allege the Town had prior written notice of the obstruction:

The Town correctly argues that any claim that vegetation obstructed a driver’s view of the intersection and of traffic on the intersecting roadways is subject to its prior written notice statute … . Since the plaintiffs did not allege that the Town had received prior written notice of any obstructed sight lines in and around the subject intersection, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Town’s motion which was to dismiss that claim … . Dutka v Odierno, 2014 NY Slip Op 02558, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

, , ,

County Could Not Avoid or Delay Payment of Property Tax Refund on Financial Hardship Grounds

The Second Department determined the county did not make a sufficient showing of “fiscal chaos” to allow it to avoid immediate payment of a refund the  overpayment of property taxes:

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the decisions of the Court of Appeals … do not stand for the proposition that a court may decline to issue an award of damages or refunds against a municipality whenever such award will result in financial hardship … . “Instead, these cases stand for the more limited proposition that, where a municipality has reasonably relied upon a widespread and longstanding practice (as in Matter of Hellerstein) or a statute is later invalidated (as in Foss), 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” … . No such situation is present in the instant case. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court properly rejected the appellants’ “fiscal chaos” defense, and granted the petitioner’s motion to compel the appellants to satisfy obligations that they incurred in connection with the stipulation of settlement and, thus, to calculate and pay the refund owed to it. Matter of Long Is Automotive Group Inc v Board of Assessors of Nassau County, 2014 Slip Op 02586, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

, ,

Eviction Based Upon Firearm and Drugs Found in Petitioner’s Apartment Affirmed Despite the Lack of Evidence Petitioner Was Aware the Items Were In the Apartment (Apparently They Were Brought Into the Apartment by Her Older Children) and Despite Petitioner’s Unblemished Record as a Tenant

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and upheld the New York City Housing Authority’s eviction of petitioner based upon the police finding marijuana, oxycodone and an operable firearm in petitioner’s apartment.  Petitioner was not in the apartment at the time the items were found, and there was evidence the items were brought into the apartment by petitioner’s older children.  There was no evidence petitioner was aware the items were in the apartment.  Supreme Court had determined eviction “shocked the conscience” because petitioner had lived in the apartment for 23 years and had an otherwise unblemished record.  The First Department reinstated the eviction order:

…[W]e review the sanction of termination in accordance with the standard set forth in Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County (34 NY2d 222 [1974]). There, the Court of Appeals defined a penalty that is unsustainable as “shocking to one’s sense of fairness” as one which

“is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the derelictions of the individuals. Additional factors would be the prospect of deterrence of the individual or of others in like situations, and therefore a reasonable prospect of recurrence of derelictions by the individual or persons similarly [situated]” (34 NY2d at 234).

Applying this standard, we find that the facts here support petitioner’s eviction. Eviction is undoubtedly a “grave” sanction. However, in permitting drugs and a lethal weapon to be present in her apartment, petitioner committed a serious breach of the code of conduct that is critical to any multiple dwelling community, and which warrants the ultimate penalty … . Petitioner’s neighbors have a right to live in a safe and drug-free environment, and petitioner significantly compromised their ability to do so, her alleged ignorance of the activities in her apartment notwithstanding … . Matter of Grant v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 02535, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

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