You are here: / Municipal Law
,

“Hose Company” Not Entitled to Payment of Tax Monies to Fire Department

The Third Department determined that a “hose company” was not part of the fire department and thus was not entitled to the payment of tax monies slated for the fire department:

The members of Citizens Hose are not trained to perform interior or exterior firefighting and, on the rare occasions when they are paged to assist the fire department, the few members who respond are limited to performing auxiliary services such as coiling hoses, directing traffic and  cleaning equipment. The evidence at trial established that whenever  the fire department  requires assistance in actually fighting a fire, it makes  a mutual aid call to volunteer fire companies in surrounding communities. Citizens Hose is not part of the mutual aid call system.  Krol … v Porter, 516002, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

, ,

Emergency Doctrine Did Not Apply to Police Officer’s Striking Plaintiff with Patrol Car​

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the emergency doctrine did not apply to a police officer’s striking the plaintiff with his patrol car and ordinary negligence principles applied:

In the instant case, Officer DeMarco acknowledged that he did not see the plaintiff until after he struck him with his car. His conduct – the failure to see that which was there to be seen – was not conduct specified in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) as exempt from the rules of the road …. Accordingly, his conduct was governed by the principles of ordinary negligence …. In any event, since Officer DeMarco acknowledged at his deposition that, at the time he struck the plaintiff, he was “not aware of any emergency situation that needed to be addressed,” the common-law emergency doctrine is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, the fifth affirmative defense, which is based upon Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, and the sixth affirmative defense, which is based upon the common-law emergency doctrine, must be dismissed.

Under the principles of ordinary negligence, Officer DeMarco’s failure to see what was there to be seen established the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability… . Starkman v City of Long Beach, 2013 NY Slip Op 03829, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Town Failed to Demonstrate It Conducted a Sufficient Search for Written Notice of Defect in Slip and Fall Case

The Second Department determined a slip and fall case could go ahead because the town failed to submit sufficient proof in its summary judgment motion that town records were searched for the notice:

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that it had no prior written notice of the alleged defect in the parking lot…. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted the deposition testimony of its deputy director of the Department of General Services and an affidavit from its deputy comptroller. However, neither of those individuals averred that they had specifically searched the records maintained by the Town Clerk and the Town Superintendent of Highways to determine whether the defendant had prior written notice of the defect at issue. Accordingly, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, and this Court need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers ….  Betz v Town of Huntington, 2013 NY Slip Op 03809, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

,

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Action Against Governmental Entity Barred by Public Policy

In affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, etc., the Second Department noted:  “ [p]ublic policy bars claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity’”… .  Rodgers v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03926, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

,

Town Failed to Demonstrate It Did Not Create Dangerous Condition—Summary Judgment in Favor of Town Denied—Exception to Written Notice Requirement​

The Second Department determined, in a slip and fall case, the town did not demonstrate (in support of its motion for summary judgment) that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition (an allegedly inadequate cover on a catch basin):

If one of the recognized exceptions applies, written notice [of a defect] is not required…. Here, the plaintiff clearly alleged in her pleadings that the Town’s construction of the catch basin was faulty in that an inadequate cover was installed on the catch basin. Consequently, the Town was required to address that issue satisfactorily as part of its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment…. The Town failed to establish, prima facie, that it had not created the dangerous condition by placement of an inadequate cover on the catch basin; in this respect, a defendant does not establish its entitlement to summary judgment merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiff’s case …. In the absence of the required showing, the Town’s motion was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ papers submitted in opposition….  Giaquinto v Town of Hempstead, 2013 NY Slip Op 03814, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

,

New York City Administrative Code Imposing a $2000 Fine for Removal Recyclable Material from Curb Violated Excessive-Fines Clauses​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which imposed a $2000 fine for the removal of recyclable material from the curb violated the Eighth Amendment as applied.  The code provision was designed to prevent large scale removal of recyclable material which deprived the City of recycling income. The petitioner was an artist who used recyclable material in his work.  He picked up a television antenna which had been put out on the curb.  He was pulled over by the NYC sanitation police, given a summons mandating a $2000 fine, and his vehicle was seized.  The First Department wrote:

It is undisputed that petitioner violated the relevant Administrative Code provision—he removed and transported a recyclable object using a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, under the specific circumstances here, we conclude that the mandatory $2,000 penalty amounts to an unconstitutionally excessive fine. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids the imposition of “excessive fines.” The New York State Constitution contains the same prohibition (art I, § 5). The Excessive Fines Clause ” limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense””… . A fine is unconstitutionally excessive if it “notably exceeds in amount that which is reasonable, usual, proper or just” …. Thus, the Excessive Fines Clause is violated where the fine is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense”… . Matter of Prince v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03623, 1st Dept, 5-21-1

 

,

Statutorily-Mandated Venue Is Not Jurisdictional and Is Waivable

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, the Second Department discussed, in great detail, the relevant statutes and case law concerning the venue provisions in the CPLR and venue as mandated in the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) Act. The Second Department determined NYCHHC Act’s statutorily-mandated venue is not jurisdictional and can be waived:

In sum, since the NYCHHC chose to waive the venue provision contained in section 7401(3) of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act for actions brought against it upon the consolidation of the plaintiffs’ two actions, and absent a showing of any special circumstances demonstrating that venue be placed in Bronx County [the statutorily-mandated venue], we conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in placing venue in Westchester County, where the first of the related actions was commenced. Wager v Pelham Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 03475, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

,

Hybrid Article 78 and Declaratory Judgment Proceeding Requires Separate Treatment of Both

In a hybrid proceeding— an Article 78 proceeding to review a Town Board’s stop work order for a quarry acting without a permit, and a related declaratory judgment action—the Second Department determined Supreme Court could not dismiss the declaratory judgment action as if it were part of the Article 78 proceeding.  The two actions must be treated as separate proceedings:

…[I]n the absence of a dispositive motion addressed to the causes of action which sought declaratory relief, the Supreme Court improperly, in effect, dismissed those causes of action …. In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek declaratory relief, on the other hand (see id. at 1008). “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment”…. “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action”…. Here, since no party made such a motion, the Supreme Court should not have summarily disposed of the causes of action which sought declaratory relief, and the matter must be remitted … .  Matter of Lake St Granite Quarry, Inc v Town/Village of Harrison, 2013 NY Slip Op 03487, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

,

Assumption of Risk Extends to Construction of Baseball Field

Plaintiff, while playing baseball, fell on a concrete pathway adjacent to the outfield while running to catch a ball.  The Second Department determined the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied to risks associated with the construction of the playing field:

…[T]he Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. That doctrine extends to those risks associated with the construction of the playing field and any open and obvious condition thereon…, as well as risks involving less than optimal playing conditions …. The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily participating in the softball game, thereby consenting to the commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the sport generally and flow from such participation, including those open and obvious risks associated with the construction of and conditions upon the playing field … .  Mattas v Town of Hempstead, 2013 NY Slip Op 03464, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

, ,

No Demonstration Burst Water Pipe Could Have Been the Result of Negligent Inspection or Maintenance; Municipality Immune from Negligent Design

In affirming Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant town with respect to damages allegedly caused by a burst storm water pipe, the Second Department determined plaintiffs did not raise a question of fact concerning negligent inspection or maintenance:

“A municipality is immune from liability arising out of claims that it negligently designed [a] sewerage system” or storm drainage system”… . However, a municipality is not immune from liability arising out of claims that it negligently maintained its storm drainage system…. For the plaintiffs to recover under a theory of negligent inspection or maintenance of the storm drainage system, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendants had ” notice of a dangerous condition or ha[d] reason to believe that the pipes ha[d] shifted or deteriorated and [were] likely to cause injury,’ that the [defendants] failed to make reasonable efforts to inspect and repair the defect,’ and that such failure caused the plaintiffs’ injuries”….  Bilotta v Town of Harrison, 2013 NY Slip Op 03444, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

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