You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

Construction of Dock Could Not Be Regulated by Town—Land Under Navigable Waters Owned by State

The Third Department determined that the Lake George Town Planning Board did not have jurisdiction to grant or deny petitioner’s application to build a dock in Lake George because the state, not the town, owned the land under navigable waters:

When the state owns land under navigable waters in its sovereign capacity, its exclusive authority preempts local land use laws and extends beyond the regulation of navigation “to every form of regulation in the public interest.”… .  The state holds title to the lands under Lake George in its sovereign capacity  and, thus, has sole jurisdiction over construction in the lake’s navigable waters provided it has not delegated this authority to a local government … .

“[A]bsent the delegations in Navigation Law § 46-a allowing local municipalities to regulate the manner of construction and location of structures in waters owned by the [s]tate in its sovereign capacity, municipalities bordering or encompassing such waters . . . have no authority to issue such regulations”… . The Hart Family v Town of Lake George, 515142, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

,

Abutting Landowner Not Responsible for Condition of Sidewalk Tree Well; Open and Obvious Condition Relates Only to Comparative Negligence

In affirming the denial of the summary judgment motion brought by the defendant abutting landowner in a sidewalk slip and fall case, the Second Department noted that an abutting landowner is not responsible for defects in a tree well, and the allegation that a condition is open and obvious only raises a question of fact about plaintiff’s possible contributory negligence. Vigil v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06853, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

 

,

Son’s Application for Succession to Mitchell-Lama Apartment Should Not Have Been Denied Because of Mother’s Failure to File Income Affidavit

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, with three dissenters, the Court of Appeals determined that his mother’s failure to file an income affidavit did not warrant the denial of her son’s [Murphy’s] application for succession to the Mitchell-Lama apartment vacated by his parents:

In this case, DHCR [Division of Housing and Community Renewal] contests neither Murphy’s status as a family member, nor that he lived in the apartment during the relevant two-year period of 1998-1999.  The sole basis for DHCR’s denial of Murphy’s application was that his mother did not file the requisite income affidavit for 1998, the year prior to Murphy’s high school graduation.  Given the overwhelming evidence of primary residence, and the absence of any indication that the failure to file was related to Murphy’s status as a co-occupant or an income-earner,  we hold that it was arbitrary and capricious for DHCR to deny succession on the basis of the failure to file a single income affidavit.

There is no doubt that DHCR has a compelling interest in encouraging the timely filing of income affidavits in order to fairly and efficiently administer the Mitchell-Lama program. Housing companies and supervising agencies like DHCR rely on these affidavits to monitor both the number and aggregate income of occupants, information that is crucial to determining the appropriate amount of rent and to ensuring that tenants remain eligible for the rental subsidy.  Accordingly, failure to file income affidavits can result in harsh penalties: the tenant can be charged a surcharge on rent for the applicable year (as occurred here), or can be evicted (see 9 NYCRR §§ 1727-2.6 [a] and 1727-5.3 [a] [7]).

In the succession context, however, the principal purpose of the income affidavit is to provide proof of the applicant’s primary residence… . As both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division noted, Murphy provided ample evidence in support of his succession application evincing that he resided in the apartment during 1998 and 1999.  Indeed, DHCR does not dispute Murphy’s residency for the past 32 years.  DHCR instead cites only his mother’s technical non-compliance for a single year to justify evicting him from the only home he has ever known.

Notwithstanding the importance of the income affidavit requirement, given the overwhelming evidence of residency provided in this case, and the lack of relationship between the tenant-of-record’s failure to file and Murphy’s income or cooccupancy, DHCR’s decision to deny Murphy succession rights was arbitrary and capricious.  Matter of Murphy v NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 146, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Board of County Legislators is Necessary Party Re: Legality of Local Law

The Second Department determined the Board of County Legislators was a necessary party in an action concerning the legality of a local law enacted by the Board:

A challenge to the procedures by which local legislation is enacted should be raised in a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the body which enacted it … . In view of the defendants’ challenge to the validity of the procedures by which the local law was enacted, the Board, as the body that enacted the local law, was a necessary party (see CPLR 1001[a]…). However, it appears that there are legal impediments to the defendants’ commencement of an action or proceeding against the Board without the Board’s consent (see Westchester County Charter § 158.11[3]). Under these circumstances, in the interest of fairness and judicial economy, we join the Board as a necessary party …, and direct the plaintiffs to effect service of process upon the Board, and serve the Board with all appropriate papers. Matter of Jenkins v Astorino, 2013 NY Slip Op 06684, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Police Officer Injured by Debris in City’s Vacant Lot Stated a Cause of Action Under General Municipal law

In finding a police officer had stated a cause of action against the City pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-e based on an injury caused by debris in an empty lot owned by the City, the Second Department determined that a violation of the NYC Health Code section requiring lots be kept free of debris could be the basis of the action:

To support a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, a plaintiff law enforcement officer, inter alia, must identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply … . Liability pursuant General Municipal Law § 205-e will exist where there is negligent noncompliance with “any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments or of any and all their departments, divisions and bureaus” (General Municipal Law § 205-e), provided that the statute, ordinance, rule, order or requirement cited is found in a “well-developed bod[y] of law and regulation” that “impose[s] clear duties” … . Section 205-e must be applied ” expansively’ so as to favor recovery by police officers whenever possible” … .

New York City Health Code § 153.19 provides that “[t]he owner, agent, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person who manages or controls a building or lot shall be jointly and severally responsible for keeping . . . the premises free from obstructions and nuisances and for keeping . . . the . . . lot clean and free from garbage, refuse, rubbish, litter, other offensive matter or accumulation of water.” Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, this provision constitutes a well-developed body of law… . Mulham v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06666, Second Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Late Notice of Claim Denied—Criteria Explained

In affirming the denial a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

Timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action sounding in tort against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA) (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]…). In determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim, the court will consider whether, in particular, the public corporation received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the claimant has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]…). Matter of Ryan v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 06691, Second Dept 10-16-13

 

, ,

Defendant May Be Liable for Obstruction in Municipal Right of Way

The Second Department determined the defendant’s (Argyros’s) motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been denied.  Plaintiff tripped on a piece of wood that was anchored into the ground.  Argyros owned the land and the piece of wood was in the town’s municipal right of way over the land.  There was evidence most property owners cared for the areas in the right of way:

” The law imposes a duty to maintain property free and clear of dangerous or defective conditions only upon those who own, occupy, or control property, or who put the property to a special use or derive a special benefit from it'” … . Here, while Argyros owned the real property on which the accident occurred and the Town possessed a right of way over the portion of it where the plaintiff fell, title to the land under the right of way is not determinative in assessing the issue of duty, as issues of control and maintenance of the property must also be considered … . * * *

The Supreme Court should have denied Argyros’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, as the evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether he controlled or maintained the area of the property where the plaintiff fell … . Riccardi v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 06673, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

, , ,

Erasure of Audio Recording Constituted Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Under New York Common Law—No Need to Turn to Federal Law Re: Preservation of Electronically Stored Information

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined the City’s erasure of an audio recording related to a police chase that resulted in injuries to plaintiffs constituted negligent spoliation under New York common law and there was no need to rely on federal authority re: the spoliation of electronically stored information [ESI]:

…[P]laintiffs’ spoliation claim can be fully addressed under New York’s common-law spoliation doctrine. However, because plaintiffs rely exclusively on the [federal] Zubulake IV rule that “[o]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold'” to preserve evidence (220 FRD at 218), we briefly address the question of whether we need to import Zubulake’s rules into the established New York common-law rules as to spoliation of non-ESI evidence.

The cases in which this Court has explicitly adopted the Zubulake rulings have involved ESI discovery … . The usefulness of the Zubulake standard in the e-discovery arena, is … that it “provides litigants with sufficient certainty as to the nature of their obligations in the electronic discovery context and when those obligations are triggered” (93 AD3d at 36). At the same time, … Zubulake “is harmonious with New York precedent in the traditional discovery context” … . This is an area that did not need greater certainty or clarification. * * *

We … conclude that reliance on the federal standard is unnecessary in this context. Zubulake interpreted federal rules and earlier federal case law to adapt those rules to the context of ESI discovery. However, the erasure of, and the obligation to preserve, relevant audiotapes and videotapes, can be, and has been, fully addressed without reference to the federal rules and standards. Strong v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06655, 1st Dept 10-15-13

 

, ,

Registered Voter Could Not Intervene In Suit to Determine Constitutionality of Local Term-Limit Law

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a “registered voter’s” [Nichol’s] motion to intervene in an action to determine the constitutionality of a local law concerning term limits for public offices.  The court explained:

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right when, among other things, “the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a][2]…). Additionally, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013). ” However, it has been held under liberal rules of construction that whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013 is of little practical significance [and that] intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings'” … .

Here, contrary to Nichols’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for leave to intervene in the action as a defendant. Although Nichols, who describes himself as a “registered voter in the County of Suffolk and an active supporter of [his] constitutional right to pass and enforce term limit legislation,” may indeed be interested in defending the local law in question, he failed to demonstrate that he has a “real and substantial interest” in the action … . Moreover, as the Supreme Court appropriately noted, he failed to show that any interest he did have would not be adequately represented by the defendant … . Accordingly, the court properly denied Nichols’s motion for leave to intervene. Spota v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 06558, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

, ,

Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Amend Complaint to Allege City Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect

In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff did not allege the city had notice of the defect and sought to amend the complaint to add the allegation.  The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend:

… [T]he Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the City’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to plead prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect. Instead, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion and permitted him to amend the pleadings and the notice of claim to add an allegation that the City received prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect where, as here, the amendment would not prejudice or surprise the City (see CPLR 3025; General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]…).  Perez v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06553, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

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