You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE; THE PURSUED CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR; THE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER AND THE TOWN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against a town police officer (Cunningham) and the town alleging the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others during a high speed chase should not have been dismissed. The car which was pursued by Cunningham struck plaintiff’s (Kolvenbach’s) car:

… [T]he Town defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and whether such conduct was a proximate cause of Kolvenbach’s injuries … . In support of the Town defendants’ motion, they submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Cunningham and other witnesses who testified that, on the day at issue, Cunningham pursued Williams at high speeds on damp roads through a main thoroughfare, and that Williams’ vehicle narrowly avoided colliding with other vehicles at earlier points during the pursuit. Thus, contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others in continuing the pursuit … . There also remain triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham activated the siren on his police vehicle … and whether he violated police protocols by failing to update his supervisors on the progress of the pursuit via his police radio … . Kolvenbach v Cunningham, 2024 NY Slip Op 00900, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: This case demonstrates what may constitute “reckless disregard for the safety of others” by a police officer during a high-speed chase which may result in municipal liability for injuries caused by the pursued vehicle.

 

, ,

THE NYC LOCAL LAW ALLOWING NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Wooten, over a comprehensive partial concurrence and partial dissent, determined that a NYC Local Law which allowed non-citizens to vote in NYC municipal elections is invalid. The opinion addressed in detail the standing of the different categories of plaintiffs and the validity of the Local Law under the NYS Constitution, the Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law:

This case concerns the validity of Local Law No. 11 (2022) of City of New York, which created a new class of voters eligible to vote in municipal elections consisting of individuals who are not United States citizens and who meet certain enumerated criteria. We determine that this local law was enacted in violation of the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, and thus, must be declared null and void. …

The local law created a new class of voters called “municipal voters” who would be entitled to vote in municipal elections for the offices of mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and council member. The law defines a “municipal voter” as “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” and who meets the following criteria: (1) “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”; (2) “is a resident of New York [C]ity and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election”; and (3) “meets all qualifications for registering or pre-registering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or pre-registered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter.” Fossella v Adams, 2024 NY Slip Op 00891, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: A NYC Local Law allowing non-US citizens to vote in NYC municipal elections is null and void.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE NATURE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BY REFERENCE TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract cause of action was sufficiently alleged. Although the complaint did not specifically identify the breached contract, the reference to the relevant provisions of the NYC Administrative Code and the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) permits gave sufficient notice of the nature of the claim:

… [P]laintiffs alleged that Con Edison failed to ensure payment of prevailing wages by codefendant … as required by the permits issued by the City Department of Transportation (DOT), in that it breached agreements required to be made, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-142, prior to obtaining such permits. Administrative Code § 19-142 required Con Edison “to agree that . . . the prevailing scale of union wages shall be the prevailing wage for similar titles as established by the fiscal officer pursuant to section [220] of the labor law, paid to those so employed,” and provides that “[n]o permit shall be issued until such agreement shall have been entered into with the” DOT. As required by the Administrative Code, the DOT permits issued to Con Edison stated that the permittee was required, “before such permit may be issued, to agree . . . that the prevailing scale of union wages shall be the prevailing wage for similar titles” established pursuant to Labor Law § 220 … …

… [T]he fact that the breach of contract cause of action in the complaint does not specifically identify the relevant contract but instead refers to “the promises required to be made pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 19-142 prior to obtaining such permits,” does not require dismissal. Despite the non-specificity, the complaint “give[s] sufficient notice of the nature of the claim” by referencing Administrative Code § 19-142 and the DOT permits … . Ross v No Parking Today, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00880, First Dept 2-20-24

Practice Point: Here the failure to identify the specific contract which was breached did not require dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action because the nature of the action was sufficiently alleged by reference to the applicable NYC Administrative Code provision and NYC Department of Transportation permits.

 

,

THE STREET REPAIR WORK DONE BY THE CITY IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS DONE MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE AND DETERIORATED GRADUALLY OVER TIME; IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO BE LIABLE FOR CREATING THE DANGEROUS CONDITION THE DEFECT MUST HAVE BEEN THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF THE WORK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, dismissed the action against the city in this slip and fall case. There was a question whether the city repair to the street deteriorated over a period of a year or more. But in order to be liable for creating a dangerous condition, the defect must be the “immediate result” of the work done:

Plaintiffs failed to raise “a triable issue of fact concerning the applicability of [an] exception to the prior written notice requirement, i.e., whether the City created the allegedly dangerous condition through an affirmative act of negligence” … . The exception is limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition. Although the record supports the inference that the City may have created a dangerous condition by failing to replace a temporary cold patch with a permanent repair, the resulting allegedly dangerous condition here developed over a period greater than a year and did not “immediately result” from the City’s work … . Graham v City of Syracuse, 2024 NY Slip Op 00710, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case, in order for a city to be liable for creating the dangerous condition, the defect must be the “immediate result” of the work done by the city. Here the work was done more than a year before and the defect developed gradually over time. The city was not liable.

 

THE 10-DAY PERIOD DURING WHICH PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER MUST APPLY FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS STARTED TO RUN WHEN HE LEARNED HE HAD SUFFERED PERMANENT LUNG DAMAGE, NOT WHEN HE FIRST CONTRACTED COVID; PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Sullivan County’s denial of disability benefits for petitioner police officer (Ramos), determined the time when petitioner learned he had permanent lung damage (September 9, 2021), not the time when he contracted COVID (August 9, 2021), was the operative date for timely application for General Municipal Law 207-c disability benefits:

Code of the County of Sullivan § 70-7 requires, among other things, applications for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c to be made “within 10 days from the date of the incident alleged to have given rise to the claim of disability or illness, or from the time such condition is discovered, whichever date is later. * * *

… [I]t was improper for the Director to use August 9, 2021 as the incident date that commenced the 10-day period within which Ramos was required to file his application for benefits. Ramos’ application clearly stated that he was informed on September 9, 2021 about his lung damage stemming from his contraction of COVID-19, and it was on this date that Ramos first discovered the disability (i.e., possible lung damage) that gave rise to his claim and application for benefits. Ramos’ September 17, 2021 application was made within 10 days of September 9, 2021 … . Matter of Sullivan County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Sullivan, 2024 NY Slip Op 00481, Third Dept 2-1-24

Practice Point: Any time period during which a police officer must apply for disability benefits starts to run when the officer first learns of his permanent disability, not when the officer first became ill.

 

, ,

WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY HAS TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT AND HAS CONDUCTED A TIMELY INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGATIONS, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO FILE ON TIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined leave to file a late notice of claim against the town should have been granted. Petitioner was convinced a neighbor had trapped her cat and taken the cat to the town animal shelter. She communicated with the shelter many times and ultimately petitioner sought to sue the town for conversion and replevin. The Second Department determined the late notice of claim would not prejudice the town because the town was aware of petitioner’s’ claims from the beginning and had conducted investigations of those claims. The fact that petitioner did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim did not justify denying leave to file:

Although the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, “where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . Matter of Anghel v Town of Hempstead, 2024 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: This case illustrates that the most important factor in whether leave to file a late notice of claim against a municipality should be granted is whether the municipality had timely knowledge of the nature of the claim. Where there has been timely knowledge and a timely investigation by the municipality, the absence of a reasonable excuse for failure to timely file the notice of claim will be ignored.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NYC HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE; THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK PLAINTIFF COMPLETED WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the plaintiff contractor was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license by the New York City Administrative Code. Therefore plaintiff’s breach of contract, unjust enrichment, account stated and quantum meruit causes action against the owner of the property plaintiff worked on was correctly dismissed. The First Department determined the LLC which owned the property was an “owner” within the meaning of the Administrative Code, and the contract was a home improvement contract within the meaning of the meaning of the code:

Obtaining a home improvement contractor’s license is neither a ministerial act nor a mere technicality … . Rather, “strict compliance with the licensing statute [i.e. Administrative Code § 20-387] is required, with the failure to comply barring recovery regardless of whether the work performed was satisfactory, whether the failure to obtain the license was willful or, even, whether the homeowner knew of the lack of a license and planned to take advantage of its absence” … .

There is no dispute that plaintiff is a “contractor” for licensing purposes (see Administrative Code § 20-386[5]), and that plaintiff did not have a valid license. The controversy here essentially distills to whether defendant owners are “owners” within the meaning of Administrative Code § 20-387(a), and, if so, whether the agreement between the parties was a “home improvement contract” (Administrative Code § 20-386[6]). If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then plaintiff was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license to recover for the work; if the answer to either question is no, then plaintiff did not need a license. KSP Constr., LLC v LV Prop. Two, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00356, First Dept 1-25-24

Practice Point: A contractor who does renovation work in New York City without a NYC Home Improvement Contractor’s license cannot sue for payment for the work.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE VIDEO SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED SO IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant NYC Transit Authority was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s slip and fall action. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet substance on the floor of defendant’s bus. The evidence of when the floor was last inspected was insufficient to show a lack of constructive notice. And the video submitted by the defendant was inadmissible because it was not authenticated:

The deposition testimony of a dispatcher employed by the defendant merely referred to general pre-trip inspection procedures performed by drivers. The defendant failed to present any evidence regarding “specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the subject accident occurred” … .

Further, the defendant could not rely upon the video of the bus that it submitted on its motion so as to meet its prima facie burden, as the video was not authenticated, and thus, was not in admissible form … . Harrington v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 00297, Second Dept 1-24-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate a lack of construction notice of the condition in a slip and fall case, the defendant must submit evidence of a specific inspection of the area close in time to the fall. Evidence of general inspection practices is never enough.

Practice Point: In order to submit a video in evidence, it must be authenticated.

 

, , , ,

THE OWNER OF A COOPERATIVE BUILDING WAS PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR FAILING TO REMEDIATE LEAD PAINT IN A SHAREHOLDER’S APARTMENT WHICH WAS SUBLET TO PLAINTIFF AND HER YOUNG DAUGHTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined the owner of the building (Windsor) in which a cooperative shareholder, Sersch, sublet her cooperative apartment to plaintiff, had constructive knowledge plaintiff’s young daughter was living with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning and peeling lead paint was found in the apartment. Summary judgment finding Windsor liable for failing to remediate the lead paint problem was affirmed:

Windsor’s agents’ frequent and consistent interactions with plaintiff and the infant plaintiff were sufficient to provide constructive notice to Windsor … . Windsor failed to proffer an affidavit from any of the doormen stating that they did not know plaintiff and the infant plaintiff or were unaware of their residence. Under these circumstances, Windsor failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the issue of constructive notice … . * * *

Windsor argues that section [NYC Administrative Code] 27-2056.15(c) exempts it from the duty to remediate and abate the lead paint in the apartment because Sersch “occupied” the apartment during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. Here, the terms of the sublease and the stipulation of settlement clearly indicate that the apartment was not “occupied” by Sersch during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. E.S. v Windsor Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00267, First Dept 1-23-24

Practice Point; Here the owner of a cooperative building was deemed liable under New York City law for failure to remediate lead paint in a shareholder’s apartment which had been sublet to plaintiff and her young daughter.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION; PLAINITFF’S DECEDENT WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; IMMUNITY IS PROVIDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to defendants’ hospital with COVID-19 and died from COVID-19. Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [P]laintiff alleges that the decedent was diagnosed with COVID-19 after arriving at Elmhurst Hospital on March 30, 2020, and that he died from COVID-19 on April 9, 2020. The defendants’ submissions, including the complaint and the transcript of the plaintiff’s hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, conclusively established that the defendants were entitled to immunity under the EDTPA (see Public Health Law former § 3082 …). As the complaint makes no allegations that the defendants’ acts or omissions constituted willful or intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm, none of the exceptions to the immunity provisions of EDTPA apply (see Public Health Law former § 3082[2]). Martinez v NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00186, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The defendants in the medical malpractice, wrongful death action are immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the hospital with COVID and died from COVID.

 

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