You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

Criteria for Review of Agency’s Condemnation of Land Explained/Failure to Consider Future Development of Land Did Not Constitute Improper Segmentation of Environmental Impact Review

The Fourth Department determined the condemnation of land by the Lockport Industrial Development Agency (LIDA) and the related State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review were properly done. The court determined that the failure to consider future development of the land did not amount to an improper segmentation of the SEQRA review process: The court explained its review powers in this context as follows:

It is well settled that the scope of our review of LIDA’s determination is “very limited” … .  We must “ ‘either confirm or reject [LIDA’s] determination and findings,’ and [our] review is confined to whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) [LIDA] had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with SEQRA and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use” (id.; see EDPL 207 [C]).  “The burden is on the party challenging the condemnation to establish that the determination ‘was without foundation and baseless’ . . . Thus, ‘[i]f an adequate basis for a determination is shown and the objector cannot show that the determination was without foundation, the [condemnor’s] determination should be confirmed’… . * * *

Although LIDA considered only the impact of the acquisition and not the impact of potential development, we reject [the] contention that LIDA thereby improperly segmented the SEQRA review process (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag]).  Although LIDA intends to sell the property to a potential developer, there was no identified purchaser or specific plan for development at the time the SEQRA review was conducted …, and thus we conclude that under these facts the acquisition is not a “separate part[] ‘of a set of activities or steps’ in a single action or project”… . Matter of GM Components Holdings LLC v Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency, 1275, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

,

No Special Duty Owed to Claimant/County Clerk Cannot Be Sued For Failure to Properly Docket a Judgment

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Angiolillo, the Second Department determined that the County Clerk could not be sued by a judgment debtor based on the clerk’s failure to properly docket a judgment.  The court held that no special duty of care was owed by the municipality to the claimant, and therefore it was unnecessary to address the “sovereign immunity” and “discretionary” versus “ministerial” issues:

A “special duty” is “a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,” and is “born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” (Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 189, 198-199; see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d at 199).

“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” (Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d at 199-200; see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d at 199). * * *

To satisfy the first and second prerequisites, the claimant must be “one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted,” and it must be shown that “recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose” of the governing statutes … . A determination that these two prerequisites are met here would require us to conclude that the class for whose particular benefit the governing statutes were enacted comprises judgment creditors, and that the legislative purpose of the statutory scheme was to make judgment creditors whole for their losses. This is simply not the case. * * *

In any event, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the third one has not. “[T]he most critical inquiry in determining whether to recognize a private cause of action where one is not expressly provided is whether such action would be consistent with the over-all legislative scheme” … . A private right of action for a new type of claim should not be judicially recognized by implication “where the statutes in question already contain[ ] substantial enforcement mechanisms, indicating that the Legislature considered how best to effectuate its intent and provided the avenues for relief it deemed warranted” … . The judgment lien created by CPLR 5018 and 5203 is simply one weapon in the “arsenal of enforcement mechanisms under CPLR article 52” provided to judgment creditors… .  Flagstar Bank FSB v State of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 08592, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

, ,

Administrative Decision Maker, Who Had Previously Ruled Against Petitioner/Employee in Disciplinary Proceedings, Should Have Been Disqualified from Reviewing Hearing Officer’s Recommendations Made in a Related Subsequent Proceeding

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the mayor (Bertoni), who ruled against the petitioner/employee on disciplinary charges, should have been disqualified from reviewing the hearing officer’s recommendations made in a subsequent PERB hearing.  After noting petitioner could properly be punished for testifying falsely in the hearings, the Third Department explained:

Reversal is required … because Bertoni should have been disqualified from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendations.  To be sure, an administrative decision maker is not deemed biased or disqualified merely on the basis that he or she reviewed a previous administrative determination and ruled against the same employee, or presided over a prior proceeding involving a similar defense or similar charges … .  However, where, as here, there is evidence indicating that the administrative decision maker may have prejudged the matter at issue, disqualification is required… . Botsford v Bertoni, 516709, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

, ,

No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of two causes of action brought by a county challenging a “mobility tax” imposed upon counties served by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).  The county alleged the mobility tax was disproportionately high because it did not receive as much service as other counties paying the same amount:

The gravamen of both claims is that the funding provided to the MTA by the County is disproportionately high when compared to the transit services received by it in return.  The MTA undoubtedly provides services to the County and its residents, however, and “[e]ven a ‘flagrant unevenness’ in application” of the financing scheme used to fund the MTA is constitutionally permissible … .

Without more, the fact that the County purportedly receives “fewer benefits from the [MTA] than those received by other[s] . . . is insufficient to warrant the relief requested” … .  Plaintiffs have not pointed to any constitutional or statutory provision that is violated by this alleged misallocation of resources and, as such, the sixth and seventh causes of action present nothing more than a nonjusticiable and impermissible attempt “to substitute judicial oversight for the discretionary management of public business by public officials” … .  Supreme Court thus acted properly in granting the MTA defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Vanderhoff… v Silver, 516180, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

,

Police Officer’s Actions In a Private Dispute Could Not Be Invoked Against Municipality Under Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

The Third Department determined that the doctrine of respondeat superior could not be invoked against a municipality for the actions of an off-duty police officer, even where the officer characterized his actions as an arrest.  Here the police officer injured the plaintiff in a private dispute that had nothing to do with the officer’s official duties:

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … .  Thus, “where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .  Notably, and as is relevant to the matter before us, “[a] municipality cannot be held vicariously liable for acts perpetrated by a member of its police force in the course of engaging in a personal dispute, without any genuine official purpose, whether or not the police officer characterizes such conduct as an arrest or incident to an arrest” … . Stevens v Kellar, 516875, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

No Standing to Challenge Governmental Action—No Injury-In-Fact and the Type of Potential Injury Alleged Does Not Fall Within the Zone of Interest Underlying the Statute

The Third Department determined that the petitioners, manufacturers of electronically-operated partitions used in school buildings, did not have standing to bring an action compelling the NYC Department of Education to comply with the Education Law (Education Law 409-f) and regulations with respect to the maintenance of the partitions.  The petitioners argued that they are subject to liability if the partitions are not maintained in accordance with the law:

The two-part test for the threshold legal requirement of standing to challenge governmental action requires, first, an injury-in-fact and, second, that the injury “fall[s] within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision” … .  Petitioners contend that they have been injured in that their employees might get hurt working on improperly maintained safety devices, they are potentially exposed to litigation if a device installed by them is not properly maintained by respondents and causes injury, and their insurance premiums have increased due to heightened exposure to liability.  We agree with Supreme Court that petitioners are essentially asserting a general challenge to respondents’ administration of the relevant statute and regulation …and further that their asserted injuries are too speculative and conjectural to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement … .

Even if a sufficient injury-in-fact was asserted, petitioners also failed to show that they are within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute and regulation. Enacted after the tragic death of a young student crushed by a school partition …, the purpose of the law was to protect primarily students … and not individuals paid to work specifically on the safety devices. … . Matter of Gym Door Repairs, Inc v New York City Department of Education, 516661, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

,

Motion to Renew Based Upon New Evidence Should Have Been Granted/Request to Depose Knowledgeable Witnesses In Addition to the Witnesses Initially Provided by the Municipality Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined a motion to renew based upon newly discovered evidence and a motion to depose additional knowledgeable witnesses (from the municipality) should have been granted:

To be entitled to renewal, plaintiffs were required to provide new facts that would change the prior determination as well as a justifiable excuse for not providing such facts earlier (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]…).  “While we generally decline to disturb the decision to grant or deny a motion to renew, we will do so if there was an abuse of discretion” … . * * *

Renewal of that part of plaintiffs’ motion which sought the production of knowledgeable witnesses should have, to a large extent, also been granted.  “While a municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for an examination before trial, a plaintiff may demand the production of additional witnesses, upon a showing that the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate”… . Hurrel-Harring… v State of New York…, 517132, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

Six-Year Breach of Contract Statute of Limitations Applied to Third Party Beneficiaries (Here the Plaintiff Villages and Towns) of Contracts Between the Counties and the Defendant Sewer-Construction Companies

The Court of Appeals, with two concurring judges, determined that the causes of action alleging the faulty construction of sewers resulting in settling of the roadways within the plaintiff villages and towns was time-barred. The plaintiff villages and towns were third-party beneficiaries to the sewer-construction contracts entered into by the counties encompassing the plaintiff villages and towns. The complaints alleged a “continuing nuisance.”  The court held that the actions were time-barred whether analyzed under a contract or nuisance theory (the continuing nuisance theory was rejected on the merits).  The court further held that the six-year breach of contract statute of limitations applied to third-party beneficiaries of the contracts (here the plaintiff villages and towns):

A breach of contract action must be commenced within six years from the accrual of the cause of action (see CPLR 203 [a]; 213 [2]).  “In cases against architects or contractors, the accrual date for Statute of Limitations purposes is completion of performance” (Newburgh, 85 NY2d at 538…).  This rule applies “no matter how a claim is characterized in the complaint” because “all liability” for defective construction “has its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties” (Newburgh, 85 NY2d at 538 …). Even if the plaintiff is not a party to the underlying construction contract, the claim may accrue upon completion of the construction where the plaintiff is not a “stranger to the contract,” and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is the “functional equivalent of privity” (Newburgh, 85 NY2d at 538-539 … ). * * *

The Appellate Division properly applied Newburgh to these actions commenced by third-party beneficiaries to the construction contracts.  Newburgh extended the completion of performance accrual rule to actions against architects or contractors brought by “intended beneficiar[ies]” of construction contracts (id.).  Here, the Counties contracted with defendants to install the sewer system for the benefit of municipalities like plaintiffs, a fact which was surely “known to all parties at the time the contracts were negotiated” (id.).  Town of Oyster Bay v Lizza Industries Inc …, 214, 215, 217, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, CtApp 12-17-13

 

, ,

“Special Relationship” Required Before Municipality Can Be Liable for Failure to Enforce Statute or Regulation

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed a complaint against the village alleging plaintiffs were exposed to “noise, smoke and odor” emanating from a Verizon facility and the exposure constituted a health hazard.  The complaint against the village alleged the negligent failure to enforce rules, regulations and building codes.  The Second Department explained that absent a “special relationship” creating a duty of care for the benefit of particular people, liability may not be imposed on a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation.  The criteria for a special relationship are:

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 the municipality 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… .

“To form a special relationship through breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action”… .

With respect to the creation of a special relationship by the municipality’s voluntary assumption of a duty and the plaintiffs’ justifiable reliance on the municipality’s undertaking, four criteria must be shown: “ (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’”… .

“[R]eliance must be examined in the specific context of the nature of the affirmative duty undertaken[,]” and “[i]t is the plaintiffs’ burden to show that the defendants’ conduct actually lulled them into a false sense of security, induced them to . . . forego other avenues of protection, and thereby placed themselves in a worse position than they would have been had the defendants never assumed the duty”… . Ferriera v Cellco Partnership…, 2013 NY Slip Op 07706, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

, ,

Condominium Owners Stated a Cause of Action Based Upon Third-Party-Beneficiary Status Re: a Contract Between the Village and an Engineer Hired to Inspect the Condominiums/The Contract Cause of Action Precluded the Professional Malpractice Cause of Action

The Second Department determined that a cause of action based upon the theory that condominium owners were third-party beneficiaries of a contract between a village and an engineer hired to inspect the condominiums should not have been dismissed.  It was alleged that the engineer approved the buildings (leading to the issuance of certificates of occupancy by the village) despite defects, including the absence of firewalls. Because a contract-based theory had been properly alleged, the related professional malpractice cause of action, sounding in negligence, should have been dismissed:

In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement . . . Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” … . Here, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from the Village Attorney attesting that the Village engaged the defendant to perform the subject inspections for the benefit of the purchasers of the subject condominiums … . Moreover, “the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution” … .

The plaintiffs asserted in the complaint that the defendant “negligently performed inspection services relative to the homes in [Encore I] and [Encore II],” in that, inter alia, the defendant “fail[ed] to detect the existence of defects in the homes and appurtenant common areas.” “[M]erely alleging that a party breached a contract because it failed to act with due care will not transform a strict breach of contract claim into a negligence claim” … . This is because “[o]bligations that flow exclusively from a contract must be enforced as contractual duties under a theory of contract law” … . “[A] court enforcing a contractual obligation will ordinarily impose a contractual duty only on the promisor in favor of the promisee and any intended third-party beneficiaries” … . “Thus where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie'” .. . Taking into account the applicable factors, including “the nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” … , it is clear that the plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries, are seeking enforcement of the defendant’s promise to properly inspect the construction of the subject homes. Thus, the only claim the plaintiffs have alleged against the defendant is one sounding in contract, and they have failed to state a cause of action sounding in tort. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Assn Inc v Cashin Assoc PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07932, Second Dept 11-27-13

 

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