You are here: / Municipal Law
,

Police Officer Not Injured by “Recognized Hazard”—No Recovery Under Municipal Law/Labor Law—Officer Injured by Suspect After Mace Canister Failed

In dismissing a Municipal Law/Labor Law cause of action brought by a police officer against the city after she was injured by a suspect when her mace canister failed, the Second Department explained:

Although Labor Law § 27-a(3) may serve as a proper predicate for a cause of action alleging a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-e …, the plaintiff failed to allege that her injuries resulted from a “recognized hazard[ ]” within the meaning of the Labor Law (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]…).  Blake v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05608, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

Cause of Action Alleging Retaliation for Sexual Harassment Complaint in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law Dismissed

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging that defendant Prison Health Service (PHS) retaliated against the plaintiff after she made a sexual harassment complaint.  The retaliation was alleged to have violated the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).  Plaintiff claimed she was subjected to excessive demands for her professional credentials and health clearance forms and the denial of overtime work.  In explaining the proof requirements, the Second Department wrote:

…”In assessing retaliation claims that involve neither ultimate actions nor materially adverse changes in terms and conditions of employment, it is important that the assessment be made with a keen sense of workplace realities, of the fact that the chilling effect’ of particular conduct is context-dependent, and of the fact that a jury is generally best suited to evaluate the impact of retaliatory conduct in light of those realities” … .

… [T]o make out an unlawful retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity as that term is defined under the NYCHRL, (2) his or her employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) his or her employer engaged in conduct which was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[7]…). Once the plaintiff has met this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its actions … . Then, if the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff has the obligation to show that the reasons put forth by the defendant were merely a pretext… .  Brightman v Prison Health Serv Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05510, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

, ,

16-Ounce “Portion Cap Rule” for Sugary Drinks Invalid

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department determined the “portion cap rule” (limiting the volume of certain “sugary drink” products to 16 ounces) was invalid because the Board of Health “overstepped the boundaries of its lawfully delegated authority” when it promulgated the rule.  In so finding, the First Department applied the analysis used by the Court of Appeals in Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1 (1989):

We must … examine whether the Board of Health exceeded the bounds of its legislative authority as an administrative agency when it promulgated the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule. Boreali illustrates when the “difficult-to-demarcate line” between administrative rulemaking and legislative policymaking has been transgressed. In Boreali, the PHC [Public Health Council] promulgated regulations prohibiting smoking in a wide variety of public facilities following several years of failed attempts by members of the state legislature to further restrict smoking through new legislation. Boreali found the regulations invalid because, although the PHC was authorized by the Public Health Law to regulate matters affecting the public health, “the agency stretched that statute beyond its constitutionally valid reach when it used the statute as a basis for drafting a code embodying its own assessment of what public policy ought to be” (id. at 9). Boreali relied on four factors in finding that the PHC’s regulations were an invalid exercise of legislative power. First, Boreali found the PHC had engaged in the balancing of competing concerns of public health and economic costs, “acting solely on [its] own ideas of sound public policy” (id. at 12). Second, the PHC did not engage in the “interstitial” rule making typical of administrative agencies, but had instead written “on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance” (id.). Third, the PHC’s regulations concerned “an area in which the legislature had repeatedly tried — and failed — to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions” (id.). Boreali [*9]found that the separation of powers principles mandate that elected legislators rather than appointed administrators “resolve difficult social problems by making choices among competing ends” (id.). Fourth, Boreali found that the agency had overstepped its bounds because the development of the regulations did not require expertise in the field of health (id. at 14).  Matter of New York Statewide Coalition … v NYC Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2013 NY Slip Op 05505, 1st Dept 7-30-13

 

,

Major Capital Improvement Rent Increase Should Not Have Been Denied in Its Entirety

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department determined the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR’s) complete denial of a rent increase for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) to an apartment building was arbitrary and capricious.  In the past, DHCR had denied an MCI rent increase only with respect to a small percentage of all the apartments in the improved building which were experiencing problems (like water damage) after the improvement was complete.  Here the DHCR had denied the increase in its entirety (for all apartments) based upon problems in a small number of apartments.  In noting that the DHCR determination was not supported by any relevant precedent (one aspect of a court’s “arbitrary and capricious” review under Article 78), the First Department wrote:

It is well settled that “[j]udicial review of administrative determinations is limited to whether the determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion… . Further, the Court of Appeals has held that an administrative agency’s determination is arbitrary and capricious when it ” neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts'”… . “[A]n agency that deviates from its established rule must provide an explanation for the modification so that a reviewing court can determine whether the agency has changed its prior interpretation of the law for valid reasons, or has simply overlooked or ignored its prior decision'” … .

When a party mounts an attack upon a decision by DHCR as inconsistent with prior determinations, our task is to examine DHCR’s precedent in similar situations. In those cases where the DHCR has denied an exterior renovation (waterproofing and pointing) MCI rent increase outright in the first instance, this Court has upheld such determinations where the owner failed to prove that the work was necessary and comprehensive… . There is, however, no evidence that the DHCR has ever had a specific policy to deny a rent increase outright in the first instance in the type of situation, as here, where defects (water damage) relating to the improvement are found in a relatively small number of the building’s apartments. Nor does DHCR present any evidence of such policy.  Matter of 20 Fifth Ave, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05434, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

,

Trivial Defect in Sidewalk Not Actionable/First Floor Tenant Abutting Sidewalk Not a Proper Defendant

In a sidewalk slip and fall case, over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined “a three-quarter-inch expansion joint, which was not filled to grade level, coupled with a one-fourth-inch height differential between slabs … was “trivial” and therefore not actionable as a matter of law…”.  Although there was evidence the width of the expansion joint exceeded the Department of Transportation construction specifications, the First Department noted there was no evidence the sidewalk was constructed with the defect.  The First Department also dismissed the action against the first-floor commercial tenant of the abutting building on the ground that the tenant was not an owner within the meaning of section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.  Fayolle v East W Manhattan Portfolio LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05431, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

, ,

Judges Not Obligated to Adhere to Pay-Voucher Recommendations Made by Assigned Counsel Program

The Fourth Department dismissed an Article 78 petition brought by the Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program (ACP) which sought to vacate the respondents-judges’ approval of pay vouchers submitted by respondent-attorney.  The Fourth Department wrote:

…[T]his proceeding challenges the authority of respondents to approve vouchers that do not comply with the ACP Plan; it does not challenge the amount of the compensation awarded, a matter reviewable only before an administrative judge ….  We reject petitioners’ contention that respondents have a mandatory duty to follow the ACP Plan and that their failure to refuse to pay vouchers not in compliance with the Plan is arbitrary and capricious.  Although ACP personnel may make recommendations to the trial court with respect to the payment of vouchers, the trial courts are not obligated to adhere to those recommendations.  “The ACP Plan does not take away from the courts the ultimate authority to determine assigned counsel’s compensation; it merely provides for a preliminary review and recommendation, which individual trial judges are free to accept or reject”… .  Matter of County of Onondaga and Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program, Inc., 57, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

, , ,

Contract Between Town and Employer of Injured Employee Did Not Allow Indemnification of Town by Employer

In a Labor Law action seeking damages for a fall from the roof of a building under construction, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed the town’s motion for contractual indemnification against plaintiff’s employer because the contract was not intended to be retroactive to the day of the injury.  The Fourth Department explained the applicable law as follows:

“Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 prohibits a third-party action against an employer unless the plaintiff sustained a grave injury or there is ‘a written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution or indemnification of the [third party plaintiff]’ ”… .  The Town concedes that plaintiff did not suffer a “grave injury,” and that it is entitled to indemnification only if it can demonstrate the existence of a written contract.  “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … .  Meabon v Town of Poland…, 634, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

, ,

Review Criteria for Municipal Disability Hearing Explained

The Second Department, in an Article 78 proceeding, explained the review criteria where there has been a disability hearing (re: a firefighter) held by a municipality pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-a:

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law at which evidence is taken is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4]…). Substantial evidence means more than a “mere scintilla of evidence,” and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides … .

When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, “the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists”… .. Moreover, where there is conflicting expert testimony, in making a General Municipal Law § 207-a determination, a municipality is “free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another” … . Thus, even if “conflicting medical evidence can be found in the record,” the municipality’s determination, based on its own expert’s conclusions, may still be supported by substantial evidence… . Matter of Solano v City of Mount Vernon, 2013 NY Slip Op 05322, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

, ,

Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action Under Municipal Law 205-e Allowed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined a police officer who was injured when she fell off the back of a flat bed truck while loading police barricades could not sue in negligence (based on the firefighter rule) but could sue under General Municipal Law 205-e based on an alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a (which imposes a general duty to provide a safe work environment):

Re: the applicability of the firefighter rule:

…[T]he firefighter rule provides that “[p]olice and firefighters may not recover in common-law negligence for line-of-duty injuries resulting from risks associated with the particular dangers inherent in that type of employment” …. The rule bars a police officer’s or a firefighter’s recovery ” when the performance of his or her duties increased the risk of the injury happening, and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury'” … * * *

While loading a flatbed truck may not be a task that is typically associated with police work, the alleged accident occurred while the plaintiff was on a police vehicle, loading police barriers, and while she was assigned to the barrier truck detail, a location and job detail to which she was exposed solely as a result of her duties as a police officer… .  * * *

Re: the viability of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action:

As observed by the Court of Appeals, the Legislature has, on several occasions, “sought to ameliorate the harsh effects of the [firefighter] rule” …. To that end, in 1935, the Legislature first enacted General Municipal Law § 205-a, which created a cause of action for firefighters who, while in the line of duty, are injured as a result of violations of statutes or regulations (see General Municipal Law § 205-a; L 1935, ch 800, § 2; L 1936, ch 251, § 1). In 1989, the Legislature enacted General Municipal Law § 205-e in direct response to Santangelo v State of New York (71 NY2d 393), which ,,,had extended the firefighter rule to police officers… .  * * *

…[T]he plaintiff has alleged that the defendants’ Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) violation is a predicate for her General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. Section 205-e does not stand alone and must be predicated on a violation of a separate legal requirement. …[T]he Court of Appeals, in addressing the various amendments to General Municipal Law § 205-e, has stated “that we should apply this provision expansively’ so as to favor recovery by police officers whenever possible”… .

Since section 27-a provides an objective standard by which the actions or omissions of a public employer, such as the City, can be measured for purposes of liability, Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) can serve as a predicate for a section 205-e claim… .  Gammons v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05298, Second Dept 7-17-13

 

, , , ,

Application for Certification as NYC School Bus Driver Should Have Been Denied Because of Past Drug Convictions

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s order that petitioner, who had been convicted of two drug offenses (felonies) in the past, be certified as a NYC Department of Education school bus driver.  The First Department explained the relevant criteria as follows:

Where the applicant seeks employment with the New York City Department of Education, the School Chancellor’s regulations apply and Regulation C-105 establishes procedures to be followed …for background investigations of pedagogical and administrative applicants. Regulation C-105 incorporates by reference article 23-A of the Correction Law. Correction Law § 752 (et seq.) prohibits unfair discrimination against a person previously convicted of a crime “unless: (1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the individual; or (2) the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals.” Correction Law § 753(a) – (h), which set forth eight factors a public agency must consider in connection with an application for a license, include the person’s duties and responsibilities, the bearing, if any, the criminal offense(s) will have on the person’s “fitness or ability” to perform his or her duties, the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the crime(s), the seriousness of the crime, information about the applicant’s reputation, etc., and the legitimate interest of the agency in protecting the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public. Regulation C-105 provides further that in reviewing the record of an applicant who has a prior criminal conviction, DOE is particularly concerned with offenses, among others, that involve the possession, distribution or selling of controlled substances.

The Chancellor’s Regulation, like the Corrections Law, provides that where the applicant has a certificate of relief from disabilities, that certificate “shall” also be considered (Correction Law § 753[3]). The certificate, however, only creates a “presumption of rehabilitation” with respect to the crime the individual was convicted of, it does not create a prima facie entitlement to the license the person is applying for… .  Matter of Dempsey v NYC Dept of Educ, 2013 NY Slip Op 05289, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

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