You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

,

County Not Necessary Party In Suit to Recover Taxes Wrongfully Paid to Town

The Second Department determined plaintiff [Verizon] could seek the refund of wrongfully collected taxes against the town which collected them and the town could then seek reimbursement from the county.  The county was not a necessary party in the action brought by the plaintiff.  Plaintiff was the owner of “mass property” (power lines, poles, transformers, etc) which had been subject to taxes for refuse collection.  The Court of Appeals ruled “mass property,” which produced no garbage, could not be so taxed:

Pursuant to the County Guaranty, the County is liable for refunds of tax payments made in connection with levies for special ad valorem taxes … . However, in the actions at bar, Verizon chose to seek refunds from the Town, to which the payments had been made, rather than from the County directly. That was proper in light of our determination that the County is not a necessary party to actions seeking refunds of tax payments made in connection with levies for special ad valorem taxes … . Accordingly, while the Town may seek indemnification from the County pursuant to the County Guaranty, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the Town is liable for these refunds in the first instance, and can be sued directly by a taxpayer. Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in entering the judgments against the Town defendants.  New York Tel Co v Supervisor of Town of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 01726, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

Hearsay in Medical Records Should Have Been Redacted/Not Relevant to Diagnosis and Not Clearly Attributable to Plaintiff as an Admission

Although the error was deemed harmless, the First Department determined hearsay statements should have been redacted from the plaintiff’s medical records.  The plaintiff alleged the police had pushed him over a fence, causing injury.  The defendants alleged plaintiff jumped.  The medical records included references to the plaintiff’s “jumping.” The jury found for the defendants.  The court explained how hearsay in a medical report should be handled:

Hearsay entries regarding the cause of an injury contained in a medical record come into evidence under the business records exception if they are germane to the treatment or diagnosis of plaintiff’s injuries … . Alternatively, the entry may be admissible as an admission, but only if there is evidence that connects the party to the entry … . The challenged entries were neither germane to treatment or diagnosis, nor were they admissions.

There was simply no evidence supporting defendants’ position that the medical doctors needed to know whether plaintiff jumped or was pushed from the fence in order for doctors to determine what medical testing he needed upon admission to the hospital. No medical expert provided such testimony … . Defendants’ only expert, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstruction expert, opined that plaintiff’s injuries were consistent with a jump from a height and not a push to a fall. He did not give any opinion on issues relating to treatment or diagnosis. This is not a case where the conclusion is so obvious that no medical testimony is needed to lay the appropriate evidentiary foundation … .

The particular challenged entries cannot be characterized as admissions. Although the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center Admission Assessment form has a box checked that “patient” is the source of the information, the particular entry on that record, “he jumped off the fence,” is not clearly a direct statement attributable to or a quote of plaintiff. The Ambulance Call Report form identifies “PO” or the police officer as the source of the information that plaintiff “jumped off a fence.” No other evidence in the record identifies plaintiff as being the source of this information. Nor is there any evidence connecting plaintiff to the 1/21/97 entry in the Progress Record that “s/p fell from a fence after being chased by police officers” or the 1/23/97 entry “fall from 2 storeys [sic]” to make them admissible as admissions by him. These entries should have been redacted from the medical records received in evidence.  Benavides v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 01682, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

, , ,

Taxi Owners Not Entitled to Damages After Ruling by NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (Which Was Alleged to Have Damaged the Taxi Owners in the Amount of Over $15 Million) Was Found Arbitrary and Capricious

The First Department determined a ruling by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), which was found to be arbitrary and capricious by the Court of Appeals, did not entitle the petitioners (taxi owners who lease their taxis to drivers) to damages. The court determined the damages were not “incidental” within the meaning of Article 78 and were not available in an Article 78 proceeding (under the facts). The court futher determined the TLC was immune from suit because the ruling at issue was an exercise of discretion . The ruling by the TLC had effectively reduced the amount a taxi owner could charge a driver by requiring that tax payments for which the owner is responsible be included in the amount charged for the lease (called a “lease cap”). After that ruling was found arbitrary by the Court of Appeals, the taxi owners sought “incidental damages” of over $15 million:

Petitioners seek damages based on the Court of Appeals’ determination that the TLC’s effective reduction of the taxi “lease cap” had no rational basis. The Court of Appeals’ determination, however, does not lead to a conclusion that the damages are “incidental to the primary relief sought” (CPLR 7806). Contrary to petitioners’ argument, monetary injury incurred as a result of agency action does not necessarily constitute incidental damages simply because a court later finds the action to have been arbitrary and capricious. Certainly, whether damages are characterized as incidental “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Even so, incidental damages are generally confined to monies that an agency either collected from or withheld from a petitioner and then was obligated to reimburse after a court annulled a particular agency determination. * * *

CPLR 7806 explicitly limits the availability of damages in an article 78 proceeding … . That article 78 permits the court, in certain circumstances, to award damages in an action that also reviews the validity of a government determination does not create a right to damages that does not otherwise exist. * * *…

[T]he TLC’s determination in this case, however unjustified it may have been, was an exercise of discretion; the TLC did consider the issue of imposing the tax rule and decided to impose it. Putting aside the merits of its decision, there is no escaping that the TLC exercised its discretion. Indeed, a governmental function such as rulemaking is necessarily an “exercise of judgment and discretion performed in the public interest,” and is protected as a discretionary act … . Accordingly, in a plenary action, governmental immunity would preclude petitioners from recovering incidental damages. Metropolitan Taxicab Bd of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 2014 NY Slip Op 01683, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

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