You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

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

 

, ,

Damages in Firefighters’ Discrimination Suit Modified

The Fourth Department modified the Supreme Court’s damages assessment in a case brought by firefighters against the City of Buffalo (and named individuals) “alleging that [the City] discriminated against them by allowing promotional eligibility lists created pursuant to the Civil Service Law to expire solely on the ground that plaintiffs, who were next in line for promotion, were Caucasian.” The order finding the City liable was issued based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Ricci v DeStefano (557 US 557) which held “before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious discriminatory action”… .In affirming that order (in a prior appeal), the Fourth Department determined the City “did not have a strong basis in evidence to believe that they would be subject to disparate-impact liability if they failed to take the race-conscious action, i.e., allowing the eligibility lists to expire” … .  The case came before the Fourth Department this time with respect to damages-issues only.  The Fourth Department affirmed the damages for emotional distress, but modified the economic damages finding that Supreme Court had erred in placing the burden of proof on the defendants to establish plaintiffs’ economic damages, and noting that damages for loss of future earnings should be based on the difference between what he or she is now able to earn and what he or she could have earned in the absence of discrimination. The Fourth Department determined some of the expert-findings were too speculative.   Margerum, et al v City of Buffalo, et al, 421, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Exception to Written Notice of Defect Prerequisite Did Not Apply; Question of Fact Whether Municipality Created Dangerous Condition (Gap in Bridge-Roadway)

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the exception to the written notice requirement (notice to a municipality re: a dangerous condition) did not apply, but there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the dangerous condition, a gap in the roadway on a bridge, which caused the infant plaintiff to fall off his bicycle.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Where the municipality establishes that it lacked prior written notice, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of an exception to the rule, i.e., that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the municipality …. The affirmative negligence exception is “limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” ….    An omission on the part of the municipality “does not constitute affirmative negligence excusing noncompliance with the prior written notice requirement”…. We conclude that defendant met its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it did not receive prior written notice of any defective or dangerous condition on or near the bridge as required by Local Law No. 1 …. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must …, we conclude, however, that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant created a dangerous condition that caused the accident ….  Hawley v Town of Ovid, 450, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Complaint Against Town for Sewage Backup in Home Dismissed

The Fourth Department affirmed the dismissal of a negligence complaint against a town arising from the backup of sewage in plaintiffs’ house.  The decision includes a concise but complete explanation of the issues relevant to municipal liability for negligence:

In an action against a municipality such as defendant, it is “the fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care.  Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to [perform certain governmental functions], this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created.  This is an offshoot of the general proposition that ‘[t]o sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally’ ” … ..“The second principle relevant here relates not to an element of plaintiffs’ negligence claim but to a defense that [is] potentially available to [defendant]—the governmental function immunity defense . . . [T]he common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions . . . [pursuant to which] ‘[a] public employee’s discretionary acts—meaning conduct involving the exercise of reasoned judgment—may not result in the municipality’s liability even when the conduct is negligent’ ” … ..  Middleton v Town of Salina, 604, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, , ,

Wage Parity Law Which Conditions Medicaid Reimbursement Upon Paying Home Health Services Workers a Minimum Wage Is Constitutional

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, the Third Department determined the Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law section 3614-c), which conditions Medicaid reimbursement upon paying home health services providers a minimum wage as set in New York City’s Living Wage Law, was constitutional. The court rejected arguments that: (1) the Legislature improperly delegated its authority to New York City; (2) the law improperly incorporated the Living Wage Law by reference; (3) extending the New York City law violated the home rule provision of the NY Constitution; and (5) the statute violated the substantive due process requirements.  Matter of Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc v State of New York, 515737, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement Not a Lease—No Permissive Referendum Required

The Third Department determined that a Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement between the Town of Colonie and Capital Region Landfills, Inc (CRL) was not a lease, and therefore a permissive referendum was not a pre-requisite to the agreement.  The Third Department wrote:

Town  Law  § 64 (2) provides that, upon adopting a resolution, a town board may “convey or lease real property in the name  of the town, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum.” The petition and amended petition  allege  that, as  the  agreement  is “the  functional equivalent of a lease,” the Town violated Town Law § 64 (2) by adopting  the resolution and  entering into the agreement  without first conducting  a  permissive referendum … . * * *

In view of the significant restrictions on CRL’s authority and control of the landfill and the rights and powers retained by the Town, the agreement does not convey “absolute control and possession” to CRL and is not a lease as a matter of law….

Accordingly, petitioners’ claim  that a  permissive referendum was required by Town Law § 64 (2) is without merit. Matter of Connors v Town of Colonie, 516058, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

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