You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

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

 

, ,

Arbitrator Exceeded His Authority by Modifying Punishment Imposed by Town Upon Employee for Misconduct

The Second Department determined an arbitrator exceeded his authority (by modifying punishment) as that authority was described in a stipulation prior to the hearing, and further determined objection to the arbitrator’s exceeding his authority was not waived by the town. Petitioner was a town employee who had been suspended for thirty days for misconduct.  The arbitrator determined there was just cause for the town’s action, but imposed a lesser penalty.  The town brought the Article 75 proceeding to address whether the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by modifying the punishment:

“Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is extremely limited” … . A court may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) “only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (…see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]…).

A party can only waive its contention that an arbitrator acted in excess of his or her power “by participating in the arbitration with full knowledge” of the alleged error that is being committed and “by failing to object until after the award” is issued … . * * *

At the beginning of the arbitration, the issue to be determined was defined as whether there was just cause to punish [the employee] and, “if not,” what the remedy should be. As framed in this manner, the issue to be determined by the arbitrator was in accordance with his powers, as set forth in Article X(E)(6) of the [Collective Bargaining Agreement], which only empowered the arbitrator to provide [the employee] with a remedy upon a finding that the imposition of discipline was not founded on just cause. Since the arbitrator found that there was just cause for the discipline imposed, the arbitrator exceeded his authority in reducing the penalty imposed. Matter of Town of Babylon v Carson, 2013 NY Slip Op 07980, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

NYC Fire Department Cannot Be Compelled to Bargain Over the “Zero Tolerance” Drug-Test Policy for EMS Personnel

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined the “zero tolerance” policy requiring the termination of emergency medical services personnel who fail or refuse a drug test was not subject to mandatory collective bargaining:

This appeal raises the question of whether the New York City Fire Department’s “zero tolerance” policy, requiring automatic termination of certain emergency medical services [EMS] employees who fail or refuse to provide a specimen for a drug test, should have been subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining found that this issue was not required to be bargained, and unions representing the employees brought this article 78 proceeding. We now uphold the Board’s decision because the City Charter provides that the discipline of these EMS employees is the sole province of the New York City Fire Commissioner, and because the Fire Department’s determination of an appropriate penalty for illegal drug use relates to its primary mission of providing public safety. * * *

The Court of Appeals recently reiterated that a public employer cannot be compelled to bargain over “inherent[] and fundamental[] policy decisions relating to the primary mission of the public employer” … . FDNY’s interest in ensuring that its EMS workers are drug-free directly relates to the primary mission of treating and providing transport for sick and injured citizens and ensuring that EMS workers do so safely. This Court of Appeals precedent provides further support for our conclusion that FDNY cannot be compelled to bargain over this fundamental public safety policy decision. Matter of Roberts v NYC Off of Collective Bargaining, 2013 NY Slip Op 07870, 1st Dept 11-26-13

 

,

Department of Homeless Services’ New Eligibility Procedure Triggered the Notice and Hearing Requirements of the City Administrative Procedure Act

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined that the NYC Department of Homeless Services’ (DHS’s) adoption of a new Eligibility Procedure for temporary housing assistance triggered the notice and hearing requirements of the City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA).  The failure to comply with the act prohibited implementation of the new rules.  In explaining that the Eligibility Procedure met the definition of a rule or regulation, the Court wrote:

DHS argues that the Eligibility Procedure is not a rule because DHS workers exercise some measure of discretion in resolving certain issues relevant to eligibility, such as whether an applicant has provided adequate cooperation during the need assessment process.  But the procedure itself is mandatory — all intake workers must follow it, regardless of the circumstances presented by an individual applicant — and many of the standards articulated in it are mandatory in the sense that their application will dictate whether an individual will or will not receive benefits.  For example, applicants are required to produce documentation pertaining to prior housing, financial resources and mental or physical impairment (which may necessitate the signing of a medical release) and if they fail to do so without a valid reason (mental or physical impairment), this “constitutes a failure to cooperate” mandating denial of benefits.  Similarly, the procedure specifies that a single adult who has $2,000 of on-hand assets “must utilize his/her resources to reduce or eliminate his/her need for emergency shelter” prior to being eligible for benefits.  Another section directs that “if an applicant has tenancy rights at any housing option, that residence will be deemed the viable housing option and the applicant will be found ineligible, provided there is no imminent threat to health or safety.”  These concrete provisions substantially curtail, if not eliminate, an intake worker’s discretion to grant THA (temporary housing assistance) benefits.  In fact, there are several specific directives in the Eligibility Procedure that appear to compel intake workers to deny benefits based on the presence or absence of a single factor, regardless of other circumstances that might support a determination of eligibility.  The procedure, which is itself mandatory, requires the application of standards that are dispositive of the outcome.  Matter of the Council of the City of New York v The Department of Homeless Services of the City of New York, 193, CtApp 11-26-13

 

,

Hotel Room Occupancy Tax On Online Hotel Reservations Okay

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, held that a New York City hotel room occupancy tax (Local Law 43), applicable to online travel companies through which customers make hotel reservations, was constitutional (reversing the Appellate Division):

Online travel companies like the plaintiffs have successfully reshaped the way people book travel.  Now, a customer can conveniently and efficiently search the plaintiffs’ websites for a hotel room and reserve it with the click of a button.  While it may no longer seem novel to reserve a hotel room online, this innovation revamped the industry, and the industry players have reaped considerable profits.  However, this innovation has not changed the main purpose of a hotel reservation process: selecting and paying for a room for future occupancy.  Local Law 43 adheres to its enabling purpose, the taxation of hotel occupancy rent and charges, by taxing everything a hotel occupant actually pays for occupancy when booking online. * * *

Local Law 43 is not unconstitutional because the State Legislature granted the City broad authority to impose a tax on hotel occupants, and Local Law 43 taxes only payments for the occupancy of a hotel room.  Expedia Inc … v City of New York Department of Finance…, 180, CtApp 11-21-13

 

,

Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against City for Negligent Failure to Provide Emergency Medical Services—No “Special Relationship” Alleged

The Second Department determined a complaint against the City alleging a negligent failure to provide emergency services (resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent) should have been dismissed.  The court explained that the criteria for a “special relationship” with the city with respect to responding to a call for medical help had not been met:

As a general rule, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection, fire protection or ambulance services” … . There is, however, a “narrow class of cases in which [the courts] have recognized an exception to this general rule and have upheld tort claims based upon a special relationship’ between the municipality and the claimant” … . Such special relationship imposes a specific duty upon the municipality to act on behalf of the claimant … . As articulated by the Court of Appeals in Cuffy v City of New York, “[t]he elements of this special relationship’ are: (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”… .

Here, the complaint fails to allege any facts tending to show that there was any “direct contact” between the decedent and the defendants or that there was any “justifiable reliance” on any promise made to the decedent by the defendants. Accordingly, the complaint does not state facts from which it could be found that there was a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants necessary to assert a negligence cause of action against the defendants … . In the absence of any allegation of such a relationship, the complaint cannot state a viable cause of action against the City based on its alleged negligence in failing to send an ambulance to the decedent’s home.  Freeman v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 07707, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

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