You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim

The Second Department explained the four-year statute of limitations for a rent overcharge claim:

“A rent overcharge claim, whether made in a judicial or administrative forum, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations” (… see CPLR 213-a; Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516[a][2]). “[T]he Rent Regulation [*2]Reform Act of 1997 (RRRA) (L 1997, ch 116) clarified and reinforced the four-year statute of limitations applicable to rent overcharge claims (see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a])” …, “preclud[ing] a court from examining the rental history of a housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the rent overcharge complaint” …, except in situations where there are substantial indicia of fraud.

Here, the DHCR [NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal] properly determined that July 17, 2005, was the “base date” of this proceeding, that is, the date four years prior to the filing of the relevant rent overcharge complaint. The DHCR properly refused to examine the rental history of the subject apartment prior to the “base date,” since there is no merit to the petitioner’s contention that there were substantial indicia of fraud in connection with the landlord’s establishment of the amount of the initial legal registered rent… .  Matter of Watson v New York State Div of Hous & Community Renewal…, 2013 NY Slip Op 05828, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, , ,

“Professional Judgment Rule” Did Not Preclude Lawsuit; Plaintiff Bitten by Police Dog While Assisting Police in a Search

The plaintiff was bitten by a police dog while assisting the police in a search.  Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the Second Department affirmed, explaining there was a question of fact about whether the “professional judgment rule” applied:

“The professional judgment rule insulates a municipality from liability for its employees’ performance of their duties where the . . . conduct involves the exercise of professional judgment such as electing one among many acceptable methods of carrying out tasks, or making tactical decisions” … . However, “the immunity afforded a municipality for its employee’s discretionary conduct does not extend to situations where the employee, a police officer, violates acceptable police practice” … .

Here, the defendants did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A question of fact with respect to whether the conduct of the dog’s handler was consistent with acceptable police practice was presented by the defendants’ evidentiary submissions … . Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied … .  Newsome v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 05805, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, , ,

School District Did Not Owe Special Duty to Plaintiff Injured in Fight After Hours on School Grounds; Failure to Lock Gate Not Proximate Cause of Injury

Plaintiff was assaulted on an athletic filed owned by defendant school district while in a group which was on the field without permission at 9:30 pm. The plaintiff alleged the school district was negligent in not providing security and in not locking the gates to the field. The Second Department determined the school district owed no special duty to the plaintiff and the failure to lock the gates was not the proximate cause of the injury:

The “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties . . . is a governmental function . . . and . . . no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” … . This special duty arises when a municipality assumes an affirmative duty to act on behalf of a specific party, and that party justifiably relies on the direct assurances of the municipality’s agents … .

… The mere provision of security does not give rise to a special duty of protection …. The District established that it did not make direct assurances regarding security to the infant plaintiff and that he did not rely on the provision of security in deciding to congregate with others on the field. * * *

A public entity may not escape liability for negligent acts which it performs in a proprietary capacity and which are a proximate cause of an injury which was sustained as the result of a foreseeable act by a third party … . However, the District demonstrated, prima facie, that the failure to lock the gates accessing the field was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries, since the assault here was not a foreseeable act. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Weisbecker v West Islip Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY slip Op 05743, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised Whether Negligent Diversion of Water by Private Property Owner and Negligent Repair by Town Caused Dangerous Icy- Road-Condition; Defendant Driver Lost Control of Her Car on the Ice and Collided with Plaintiffs

The Second Department determined that questions of fact existed about whether defendant abutting property owner (Gromley) and the defendant town created the icy road condition that caused defendant driver to lose control of her car, thereby allegedly injuring the plaintiffs in a collision with the school bus in which plaintiffs were riding:

A private landowner may be liable for injuries sustained in a car accident that is proximately caused by an ice condition occurring on an abutting public roadway, where that ice condition was caused and created by the artificial diversion of naturally flowing water from the private landowner’s property onto the public roadway… . … [T]he plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the artificially diverted water from the Gormley defendants’ property contributed to the ice condition on the subject roadway that caused [defendant driver] to lose control of her car and collide with the school bus… . * * *

…[T]he plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town affirmatively created the condition through an act of its own negligence, and whether the Town’s negligence at the time the road was repaired immediately resulted in the existence of the hazardous condition … . Cebron v Tuncoglu, 2013 NY slip Op 05729, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

,

Overriding Village Legislative Cap on Number of Taxicab Licenses Not a Proper Subject of Mandamus Action—Applicability of Mandamus Explained

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the Article 78 proceeding which sought to override a legislative cap on the number of taxicab licenses which could be issued by the village was not a proper subject of a mandamus action:

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief has been demonstrated” .. . “A discretionary act involves the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result” … . Thus, mandamus may be employed “to compel acts that officials are duty-bound to perform” … . However, mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a purely legislative function … . “[T]he courts must be careful to avoid . . . the fashioning of orders or judgments that go beyond any mandatory directives of existing statutes and regulations and intrude upon the policy-making and discretionary decisions that are reserved to the legislative and executive branches”… .  Matter of Gonzalez v Village of Port Chester, 2013 NY slip Op 05691, 2nd Dept 8-21-13

 

,

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

 

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