You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

Expired Fire Fighters’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not “In Effect” Pursuant to Statute With Respect to Fire Fighters’ Mandated Contributions to Pension Plan

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the City of Yonkers Fire Fighters was not “in effect” within the meaning of Article 22 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.  For some purposes, the Retirement and Social Security Law deems a collective bargaining agreement to remain “in effect” after it has expired, until another agreement is reached.  If the collective bargaining agreement had been deemed to be “in effect” in this case, the firefighters would not have been required to contribute to their pensions, a requirement that was imposed only after the collective bargaining agreement expired.  Matter of City of Yonkers v Yonkers Fire Fighters …, 48, CtApp, 4-2-13

 

, ,

Criteria for 1983 Action Against Municipality Based On Policy or Custom

In reversing the trial court’s setting aside a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action for false arrest, the Second Department laid out the criteria for a 1983 action against a municipality in this context:

… [A]plaintiff may prevail on a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against a municipality where the plaintiff proves the existence of “(1) an official policy or custom [on the part of a municipal defendant] that (2) cause[d] the claimant to be subjected to (3) a denial of a constitutional right” … . “For a cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 to lie against a municipality, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional must implement[ ]or execute[ ] a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers'” …, or have occurred pursuant to a practice “so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage’ with the force of law” … .

“A municipal custom or policy can be shown by establishing that an official who is a final policy maker directly committed or commanded the violation of the plaintiff’s rights” … . Liability for a violation of 42 USC § 1983 may be predicated on “a single act, as long as it is the act of an official authorized to decide policy in that area” … .  Bassett v City of Rye, 2013 NY Slip Op 02037, 2011-10149, Index No 20430/05, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

, ,

City Deemed Immune from Suit—Governmental and Proprietary Functions Explained 

Plaintiff was injured when a Department of Transportation (DOT) worker, who was setting up cones on the roadway in preparation for road repair, allowed plaintiff to ride through the work area on her bicycle.  The plaintiff was injured when she rode over a pothole. The First Department determined the defendant City was immune from suit because the DOT worker was performing a discretionary/governmental, not a proprietary function, when he allowed the plaintiff to ride through.  The decision includes detailed discussion of discretionary/governmental versus proprietary functions.  Wittorf v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02014, 8358, 103233/06, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

,

Housing for Actors and Theater Staff Deemed Tax-Exempt

The Fourth Department determined that the petitioner had demonstrated its property, which was used to house actors and staff for seasonal theaters and generated no income, met the criteria for tax-exempt property under Real Property Tax Law 420-a:

According to [the] director, the housing of actors and staff together promotes countless hours of volunteer work in the form of “running lines together, discussing creative ideas, working on wardrobes, [and] creating sets,” all of which further the purposes and mission of petitioner. That director also averred that the properties are not open to the public and create no income for petitioner. …. [W]e note that housing used to further an exempt purpose has been found tax exempt in numerous other contexts… .  Matter of Merry-Go-Round Playhouse, Inc. v Assessor of City of Auburn, et al, 268, CA 12-01797, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

, , ,

Court’s Sua Sponte Transfer of a Zoning-Related Case to Another County Was Improper; The Denial of a Request for a Variance Does Not Affect Real Property within the Meaning of CPLR 507

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred in transferring a case to another venue sua sponte and in determining that an action seeking to annul the denial of a variance affected real property within the meaning of CPLR 507:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul two determinations of respondent made in connection with petitioner’s application for an area variance from a provision of the Town of Whitestone’s Zoning Ordinance. The proceeding was commenced in Supreme Court, Onondaga County, and by …order …that court, sua sponte, transferred the proceeding to Supreme Court, Oneida County, pursuant to CPLR 507. We agree with petitioner that the court erred in transferring the proceeding sua sponte. CPLR 509 provides that the place of trial may be changed to another county “by order upon motion, or by consent.” CPLR 510 provides the grounds for the change of the place of trial, upon a motion. A court “is authorized to change venue only upon motion and may not do so upon its own initiative” …. Additionally, a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination denying a request for an area variance does not affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property, and thus the court erred in relying on CPLR 507 in transferring the proceeding.  Matter of Mimassi v Town of Whitestone Zoning Board of Appeals, 189, CA 12-01652, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

, ,

Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim

In this case a notice of claim was filed naming the Erie County Medical Center Corporation (ECMCC) as defendant. In the complaint, the individual doctors, employees of ECMCC, were named as defendants. Overruling precedent to the contrary, the Fourth Department determined it was not necessary to name the individual employees in the notice of claim in order to sue them. In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, the Fourth Department wrote:

 …[D]efendants contend that, although service of the notice of claim on the Employee Defendants was not required, plaintiff was nevertheless required to name those individual defendants in the notice of claim as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against them. Despite precedent supporting that contention, we agree with Supreme Court that there is no such requirement. * * *

Although “[p]recedents involving statutory interpretation are entitled to great stability” …, we conclude that the courts have misapplied or misunderstood the law in creating, by judicial fiat, a requirement for notices of claim that goes beyond those requirements set forth in the statute.

If the legislature had intended that there be a requirement that the individual employees be named in the notices of claim, it could easily have created such a requirement. Goodwin, et al, v Pretorius, et al, 101, CA 12-01441, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

,

Prior Written Notice of Defect Not Needed Where It Is Alleged Municipality Created Dangerous Condition.

In finding the plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the municipality affirmatively created a dangerous condition (a curved section of fence alongside a roadway), the Second Department wrote:

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subject to liability for personal injuries caused by a defective street or sidewalk condition absent proof of prior written notice or an exception thereto … . “The Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence [and] where a “special use” confers a special benefit upon the locality'” … .

The affirmative creation exception “[is] limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence …, where, as here, the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies … . Laracuente v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 01810, 2011-09475, Ind No 17543/06, Second Dept. 3-20-13

 

 

,

No Notice of Defect Needed Where Municipality Affirmatively Created It.

The Second Department reversed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant village because the village did not rule out the possibility that the sidewalk defect had been affirmatively created by negligent design and construction, an exception to the requirement that the village have prior notice of a sidewalk defect before a personal injury suit will be allowed:

Here, the defendant established that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Nonetheless, it failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . Here, the plaintiff’s pleadings alleged that the defendant affirmatively created the dangerous condition that caused the accident through negligence in the design and construction of the sidewalk … . Under these circumstances, the defendant was required to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it affirmatively created the alleged dangerous condition through negligent design and construction to sustain its prima facie burden … . The defendant failed to do so, and therefore, its motion for summary judgment should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers …. Carlucci v Village of Scarsdale, 2013 NY Slip Op 01798, 2012-09179, Second Dept. 3-20-13

slip and fall

, , ,

False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, and 1983 Actions Allowed to Proceed

In reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in an action for false arrest, malicious prosecution and violation of 42 USC 1983, the Second Department wrote:

…[I]n opposition to the Allstate defendants’ prima facie showing, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the Allstate defendants affirmatively induced law enforcement officials to act by taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made, or by engaging in active, officious, and undue zeal to the point where the law enforcement officials were not acting of their own volition … . The plaintiff’s submissions were also sufficient to raise triable issues of fact as to whether the Allstate defendants intentionally provided false information to law enforcement officials or withheld material information …, thereby permitting an inference of actual malice … . The plaintiff’s submissions additionally raised triable issues of fact as to whether the Allstate defendants “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive [plaintiff] of federal rights” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the Allstate defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Robles v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 01814, 2011-11017, Index No 27364/07, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

, ,

County Executive Has Authority to Commence Lawsuit Without Resolution from County Legislature

The Fourth Department determined the Erie County Executive had the authority to bring a lawsuit alleging fraud on the part of a County Commissioner which resulted in the payment of more than $4,000,000 for goods and services that had not been provided.  The defendant contended the County could not bring the suit absent a resolution by the County Legislature.  The Fourth Department wrote:

There is no dispute that the County Legislature did not pass a resolution authorizing the commencement of this action. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, we conclude that, notwithstanding the absence of such a resolution, the County Executive was empowered to commence this action on behalf of the County (see Matter of County of Rockland v Town of Clarkstown, 167 Misc 2d 367, 371). Under the County Charter, the County Executive is the Chief Executive Officer, the administrative head of the County government, and the Chief Budget Officer of the County.The County Charter grants the County Executive “all necessary incidental powers to perform and exercise any of the duties and functions specified . . . or lawfully delegated to him” (Erie County Charter § 302 [former (n)], now [m]).The County Executive is empowered by the County Charter to authorize the County Attorney to commence civil litigation to enforce any of the duties and functions lawfully designated to the County Executive (see § 602; see also § 302 [former (m)], now [l]; [former (n)], now [m]).Inasmuch as this action seeks to recover over $4 million dollars of the County’s funds that were allegedly improperly paid under the M/A-Com contract as a result of defendant’s alleged fraud, we conclude that the County Executive’s duties as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Budget Officer of the County clearly embrace the subject matter of this action and empower him to authorize the County Attorney to commence the litigation (see Rockland County, 167 Misc 2d at 371).  Justices Sconiers and Whalen disagreed in a substantial dissent.  County of Erie v M/A-Com, Inc., et al, 1184, CA 12-00075, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

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