You are here: / Municipal Law
,

Notices of Claim Were Sufficient to Notify County of a “Navigation Law 181” Cause of Action Re: a Fuel Spill

The Second Department determined the notices of claim against the county were sufficient even though they did not explicitly mention a violation of Navigation Law section 181.  The notices alleged the county was negligent with respect to underground fuel storage tanks resulting in leakage and contamination of water wells. The notices did not specifically recite that the County was subject to strict liability for a violation of Navigation Law section 181. The Second Department explained the relevant legal and factual notice requirements:

…[T]he plaintiffs, as a condition precedent to the assertion of Navigation Law § 181 cause of action, were required to serve a notice of claim that included information and allegations specific to their Navigation Law § 181 cause of action. County Law § 52 requires a notice of claim to be served upon the County, and applies to any claim for “for invasion of personal or property rights, of every name and nature” and to “any other claim for damages arising at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused or sustained in whole or in part by or because of any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence or wrongful act on the part of the county” (County Law § 52). The assertion of a Navigation Law § 181 cause of action against the County, which could result in the County being held strictly liable for all cleanup costs and damages resulting from a discharge of petroleum, is subject to the broad notice-of-claim requirements of County Law § 52… .

…[T]he plaintiffs’ notices of claim were sufficient to apprise the County that they intended to pursue a cause of action premised upon a violation of Navigation Law § 181. The plaintiffs were not required to “state a precise cause of action in haec verba” in their notices of claim … . “The test of the sufficiency of a [n]otice of [c]laim is merely whether it includes information sufficient to enable the [municipality] to investigate'” the claim … . Here, the plaintiffs’ notices of claim set forth conduct on the part of the County which allegedly caused the discharge of petroleum onto the plaintiffs’ properties, thereby resulting in damage to the properties. The notices of claim provided information sufficient to enable the County to investigate the alleged fuel spills, leakage, and seepage while information concerning the alleged fuel spills, leakage, and seepage was still readily available. As such, the notices of claim were sufficient to alert the County to the potential Navigation Law § 181 cause of action, and afforded the County ample opportunity to promptly investigate the alleged spills, leakage, and seepage underlying that cause of action. Bartley v County of Orange, 2013 NY Slip Op 07701, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

Lease Which Purported to Deregulate Rent-Controlled Apartment Is Void As Against Public Policy

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Mazzarelli, the First Department determined that a lease (called the “New Agreement”) which purported to deregulate a rent-controlled apartment was void as against public policy:

In Drucker v Mauro (30 AD3d 37, 39 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 7 NY3d 844 [2006]) this Court stated:

“It is well settled that the parties to a lease governing a rent-stabilized apartment cannot, by agreement, incorporate terms that compromise the integrity and enforcement of the Rent Stabilization Law. Any lease provision that subverts a protection afforded by the rent stabilization scheme is not merely voidable, but void (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.13), and this Court has uniformly thwarted attempts, whether by mutual consent or by contract of adhesion, to circumvent regulated rent maximums.”

Even an agreement that modifies the rent laws in a manner favorable to the tenant is of no effect (id. at 41). The New Agreement does not merely modify the rent regulations; it declares them inapplicable to the apartment. Without question, then, the New Agreement is void. We note that, although Drucker addressed only agreements to deregulate rent-stabilized apartments, there is no logical reason why the same principle should not apply to the rent-controlled apartment at issue here.  Extell Belnord LLC v Uppman, 2013 NY Slip Op 07697, 1st Dept 11-19-13

,

Village Properly Withdrew Its Defense and Indemnification of Officials When Officials Refused a Reasonable Settlement Offer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman (with a dissent), determined “that a municipality, consistent with its obligations under Public Officers Law, may withdraw its defense and indemnification of current and former municipal officials and officers in a civil action for their failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer, and that First Amendment concerns with respect to the settlement’s nondisclosure clause do not warrant a different conclusion:”

The Freeport Village Code § 130-6 adopts Public Officers Law § 18 (3)(a), which provides that “public entity shall provide for the defense of [an] employee in any civil action or proceeding, state or federal, arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or allegedly occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment or duties.”  The Village’s duty to defend and indemnify “shall be conditioned upon: . . . the full cooperation of the employee in the defense of such action or proceeding against the Village based upon the same act or omission” (Freeport Vil. Code § 130-6 [A][1] [emphasis added]; Public Officers Law § 18 [5][ii]). * * *

A municipal employer’s statutory duty to defend a public officer under Public Officers Law § 18 is similar to an insurance company’s contractual duty to defend an insured (Matter of Dreyer v City of Saratoga Springs, 43 AD3d 586, 588 [3d Dept 2007]).  As in the insurance context, petitioners were obligated to cooperate in the defense of the action as a condition of their defense and indemnification (Public Officers Law § 18 [5][ii]; Freeport Vil. Code § 130-6 [A][1]).

“In order to disclaim coverage on the ground of an insured’s lack of cooperation, the carrier must demonstrate that (1) it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) the efforts employed by the carrier were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) the attitude of the insured, after cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction”… . Matter of Lancaster v Incorporated Village of Freeport…, 181, CtApp 11-19-13

 

,

County Properly Passed Legislation Phasing Out Tax Exemption

The Fourth Department determined the county, by passing legislation, could remove a tax exemption for a municipal water and sewage treatment facility:

…[W]e agree with the court that the County Board’s adoption of the 2011 resolution phasing out all tax exemptions for municipal water and sewage treatment facilities constituted a “legislative change” within the meaning of the Exemption Agreement.  The County Board is a legislative body that exercises defendant’s power “through a local law or resolution duly adopted by the board” (County Law § 153 [1]; see § 150-a [1]), and the Exemption Agreement specifically provides that a legislative change shall modify the obligations of the parties to comply with such legislative change.  Village of Lowville v County of Lewis, 906, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

, ,

Lease; Services Agreement Did Not Allow Building Owner to Recover for Condition of Property

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiffs, the building owners, could not recover damages related to the condition of the property upon the termination of the lease.  The property was used as a homeless shelter.  The City of New York entered into a Services Agreement with The Salvation Army to run the shelter.  The Salvation Army leased the property from the property owners. The City, in the Services Agreement, was required to pay The Salvation Army’s obligations to the property owners under the lease. The Court wrote:

The Lease is clear that, as a general proposition, The Salvation Army is not obliged to pay more to plaintiffs than it can recover from the City, and it is equally clear that The Salvation Army must do what it reasonably can to recover what the City owes it.  If The Salvation Army breached its duty to use commercially reasonable efforts to enforce a City obligation, it could not rely on the City’s non-payment of that obligation to defeat plaintiffs’ claim.  …[H]owever, … the complaint fails to allege any commercially reasonable step that The Salvation Army should have taken to recover money from the City. Plaintiffs do not identify any provision of the Services Agreement under which the City owes money to The Salvation Army that The Salvation Army failed to collect.  JFK Holding Company LLC v City of New York…, 196, CtApp 11-14-13

 

, ,

Causes of Action Stated Against County for Allowing Public Traffic During Paving Operation and Violation of Regulation Requiring Truck-Brake Maintenance

The Third Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action sounding in negligence and a violation of Labor Law 241(6).  Plaintiff was driving a truck hauling asphalt to a county roadway paving operation (which had been contracted out to a private company–Graymont) when the truck’s brakes failed. Plaintiff was seriously injured when, after avoiding public traffic, he jumped from the truck which continued on over an embankment. The court upheld the negligence claim against the county which was based upon the county’s permitting public traffic on the road during construction.  The court further determined the county was entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification action against the private construction company (Graymont—based upon the county’s contract with the company). And the court upheld the Labor Law 241(6) claim, finding the regulation requiring truck-brake maintenance supported the cause of action:

Plaintiff alleges that the County violated 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (a),  which provides that “[t]he brakes of every motor truck shall be so maintained that such truck with full load may be securely held on any grade that may be encountered in normal use on the job.”  While the County does not dispute that this provision is sufficiently specific to form the basis for liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), it argues that the regulation is not applicable to the circumstances here.  Mindful that “[t]he Industrial Code should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” …, we cannot agree.  Although the regulation speaks in terms of the ability of the brakes to “h[o]ld” the construction vehicle, the purpose of the regulation is to ensure proper functioning of a truck’s brakes on any terrain or grade normally encountered.  Thus, we find that the language of the regulation addresses not only the ability of a truck’s brakes to hold a stopped truck in place, but also the ability of the brakes to bring a moving vehicle to a stop. Duffina v County of Essex…, 515346, 3rd Dept 11-14-13

 

,

Revocation of Plumber’s License Too Severe a Penalty

The First Department determined that the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) imposed too harsh a penalty when it revoked petitioner’s master plumbing license after finding she violated the NYC Building Code:

…[W]e find that the penalty of revocation was excessive upon considering the following factors: the license is petitioner’s sole means of livelihood; this was the only instance of misconduct in an otherwise unblemished history as a licensed master plumber since 2001; there was no resultant harm to the public or the agency; and petitioner seemingly acknowledged the potential for harm when she informed the owner that his worker’s performance was inadequate and proposed that her workers correct the violations … . We note that the record demonstrated that DOB’s precedent indicates that in several other instances where licensees have committed similar acts of misconduct by performing work prohibited by the Code and/or submitting false reports or documents to DOB, which potentially placed the public at greater risk of harm than the misconduct at issue here, the agency imposed far less severe penalties. Matter of Ward v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 07569, 1st Dept 11-14-13

 

, ,

Local Law Prohibiting Use of Groundwater Outside Village Preempted by State Law

The Second Department determined a village Local Law which prohibited the removal of groundwater for use outside the village was preempted by state law (Transportation Corporations law, Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)):

As relevant to this case, the Transportation Corporations Law permits water-works corporations to extend their service area to neighboring municipalities by entering “into a contract with the authorities of any city, town or village not mentioned in its certificate of incorporation, but situated in the same county as the city, towns or villages mentioned therein or in an adjoining county” (Transportation Corporations Law § 46). … Notably, the statutory procedure for obtaining a certificate of extension does not require the water-works corporation to obtain the consent or permission of the municipality where it was originally incorporated, an omission which we must conclude the Legislature intended (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240) and which comports with the long-recognized policy in favor of the extension of water resources to less-advantageously situated municipalities… . … Accordingly, we conclude that the Legislature manifested an intent to preempt local laws which have the effect of prohibiting a water-works corporation from transferring water from one municipality to another … .Further, to the extent that the Local Law was enacted, either in purpose or effect, as a measure to regulate withdrawals of groundwater, it is further preempted by article 15 of the ECL. The terms “waters,” as used in ECL article 15, is expansive and includes all surface and underground water within the state’s territorial limits (see ECL 15-0107[4]). ECL article 15 states: “The sovereign power to regulate and control the water resources of this state ever since its establishment has been and now is vested exclusively in the state of New York, except to the extent of any delegation of power to the United States” … . The Legislature declared it to be the public policy of the state that: “The regulation and control of the water resources of the state of New York be exercised only pursuant to the laws of this state” (ECL 15-0105[1] … ), and the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter the DEC) is given jurisdiction “in any matter affecting the construction of improvements to or developments of water resources for the public health, safety or welfare, including but not limited to the supply of potable waters for the various municipalities and inhabitants thereof” (ECL 15-0109). Woodbury Hgts Estates Water Co Inc v Village of Woodbury, 2013 NY Slip Op 07468, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, ,

Improper Notice of Benefit Termination; Four-Month S/L Never Triggered; Termination Annulled

The Second Department determined the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 review was never triggered because the NYC Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) failed to provide proper notice of termination of Section 8 housing benefits.  Therefore the termination was properly annulled and the subsidy was properly reinstated:

Pursuant to paragraph 22(f) of the Williams first partial consent judgment, the four-month statute of limitations of CPLR 217 begins to run on the date of receipt of the NYCHA’s notice of default letter … . Paragraph 22(f) cannot be read in a vacuum. Relying on contract principles, as urged by the NYCHA, and reading the Williams first partial consent judgment as a whole, we conclude that the NYCHA has the burden of satisfying the condition precedent of serving all three notices upon the Section 8 participant before its determination to terminate a participant’s subsidy can be considered final and binding upon the participant … . * * *

Here, the NYCHA failed to show that it mailed two of the three required notices. It did not present any proof that it mailed the initial warning letter and it submitted insufficient proof with respect to the mailing of the T-1 letter. As a result of this failure to abide by the notice provisions set forth in the Williams first partial consent judgment, the statute of limitations was not properly triggered and did not begin to run … . Matter of Dial v Rhea, 2013 NY Slip Op 07475, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Abutting Property Owner Did Not Have a Duty to Maintain Crowd Control Barriers Placed on Sidewalk by City

The Second Department determined abutting property owners had no duty to maintain crowd control barriers erected by the City on sidewalks during the holiday season.  Therefore, plaintiff, who was allegedly injured tripping over a barrier, did not have a cause of action against the abutting property owner:

Generally, liability 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 … . “Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner” … . Legislative enactment in derogation of the common law which creates liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed … .

Under the circumstances presented here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the barrier at issue, which was part of a long chain of barriers erected by the NYPD as part of its crowd control measures during the holiday season, was not part of the “sidewalk” for purposes of liability under Administrative Code § 7-210 … . Accordingly, Administrative Code § 7-210 is inapplicable and the defendant had no duty to maintain the barriers. Staruch v 1328 Broadway Owners, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07467, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

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