You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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

 

,

Valid Cause of Action Stated in Slip and Fall Suit Against Abutting Property Owner for Obstruction in Sidewalk (Gas Cap Cover)

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined the slip and fall complaint stated a cause of action against the owner of property abutting a sidewalk.  In the sidewalk was a gas cap cover, owned by a utility, and concrete on top of the gas cap created raised area which was alleged to have caused plaintiff to fall.  A Long Beach City Ordinance imposed a duty upon abutting landowners to remove obstructions. The defendant relied heavily on cases construing New York City’s sidewalk law, which differed from the more broadly worded Long Beach ordinance:

The Charter imposes broad obligations on abutting landowners with respect to the condition of sidewalks, and also provides for tort liability on those landowners:

“The owner . . . of lands fronting or abutting on any street . . . shall make, maintain and repair the sidewalk . . . adjoining his lands and shall keep such sidewalk . . . free and clear of and from snow, ice and all other obstructions. Such owner . . . shall be liable for any injury or damage by reason of omission, failure or negligence to make, maintain or repair such sidewalk . . . or to remove snow, ice or other obstructions therefrom, or for a violation or nonobservance of the ordinances relating to making, maintaining and repairing sidewalks . . . and the removal of snow, ice and other obstructions from sidewalks” (Charter § 256 …).

The Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach defines “sidewalk” as “any portion of a street between the curbline and the adjacent property line, intended for the use of pedestrians, excluding parkways” (Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach § 1-2). Here, the gas cap was located entirely within a sidewalk flag and was level with the sidewalk, and therefore apparently was intended to be traversed by pedestrians. Thus, the plaintiff contends, the concrete above the gas cap is covered by Long Beach’s sidewalk law, at least to the extent that it may have been an “obstruction” on the sidewalk. Klau v Belair Bldg LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 06548, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

Question of Fact About Whether Village Negligent in Maintaining Sewer System

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact about whether the defendant village was negligent in maintaining the sewer system resulting in sewage leaking into plaintiffs’ basement:

We conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant “received ‘notice of a dangerous condition or ha[d] reason to believe that the [sewer] pipes ha[d] shifted or deteriorated and [were] likely to cause injury’ ” and whether defendant neglected to “ ‘make reasonable efforts to inspect and repair the defect’ ” … .  The record establishes that plaintiffs made numerous complaints to defendant for many years prior to the incident at issue and that defendant did not consistently keep written records of the complaints it received with respect to the sewer lines.  Mason v Village of Neward, 856, 4th Dept. 10-4-13

 

, ,

City Code and Charter Not Unconstitutionally Applied Re: Searches Related to Certificates of Occupancy

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of an Article 78 petition. In granting the petition, Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the city code and charter were unconstitutional as applied with respect to searches of petitioner’s property in connection with the issuance of certificates of occupancy.  In reversing that determination, the Fourth Department wrote:

We have previously upheld as constitutional the City’s CO requirement as well as its procedure for issuing judicial warrants for inspections of premises in cases where the City has failed to obtain the consent of the homeowners or tenants … .  Petitioner concedes that the laws at issue are valid on – their face, but contends that the determination that he violated City Code § 90-16 (A) (2) (d) is unconstitutional because, as a result of the determination, he will be required to consent to a warrantless inspection of his property or risk prosecution and fines.  That contention, however, was specifically considered and rejected by this Court in Matter of Burns v Carballada (101 AD3d 1610, 1611-1612), which involved facts nearly identical to those herein.  The petitioners in Burns commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul two determinations of the Municipal Code Violations Bureau finding that they violated City Code § 90-16 (A) (2) (d), the same provision at issue here, by owning rental property that was occupied without a valid CO (id. at 1610).  In the Burns petition, like the petition in this case, petitioners asserted, inter alia, that the determinations that they failed to comply with the City Code CO provision violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution (id.).  Specifically, petitioners contended that the City’s CO inspection and warrant system was unconstitutional as applied to them because it prevented them from obtaining a CO without first consenting to a warrantless search of their properties (id. at 1611-1612).  We rejected that contention and stated that, “[u]nder the City’s ordinance, . . . an inspection can take place either upon consent or upon the issuance of a warrant (see City Charter § 1-11).  On the record before us, petitioners have not shown that they were actually penalized for refusing to allow an inspection inasmuch as there is no evidence that they ever applied for a CO and thereafter refused to consent to the required inspection of their properties” (id. at 1612).  Matter of Capon v Carballada…, 858, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

,

Criteria for County’s Immunity from Village Ordinances Explained

In remitting the matter to create a more complete record, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for determining whether the county is immune from the requirements of village ordinances prohibiting the use of the village sanitary system for a county jail within the village limits:

We agree with the Village that the record is inadequate to make a determination, based upon a “balancing of public interests,” whether the County is immune from the requirements of those amendments with respect to its siting of the proposed Facility … .  The factors to be weighed in making that determination are “the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests[,] . . . the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, . . . alternative methods of providing the needed improvement[,] . . . intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard” … .  Here, inasmuch as the record is inadequate to permit the appropriate balancing of those factors, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination, based upon a more complete record, whether the County is immune from the requirements of the Village zoning ordinance… . Matter of County of Herkimer v Village of Herkimer, 937, 4th Dept 9-27-13.

 

,

Question of Fact Whether City Had Notice of Pothole in Bicycle-Injury Case; Big Apple Pothole Map May Have Provided Notice

The Second Department affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a pothole bicycle-injury case.  The court determined that there was a question of fact about exactly where the pothole was and whether it was indicated on the Department of Transportation’s Big Apple Pothole map:

…”[W]here a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute such as Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2), it may not be subjected to liability for injuries arising from a defective roadway unless it has received timely prior written notice of the defective condition” … . A Big Apple map submitted to the Department of Transportation may serve as prior written notice of a defective condition … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect. Where, as here, “there are factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiff’s fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury”… Chia v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 05873, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

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