You are here: / Municipal Law
, , , ,

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING THE COUNTY TAX MAP VERIFICATION FEES CONSTITUTED UNAUTHORIZED TAXES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged that certain fees (tax map verification fees) charged by the county’s Real Property Tax Service Agency constituted taxes which were not legislatively authorized:

… [T]he tax map verification fees were not expressly authorized by the State Legislature through the 2019 revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021. A tax is exacted from a citizen to “defray the general costs of government unrelated to any particular benefit received by that citizen” … . “The State Constitution vests the taxing power in the state legislature and authorizes the legislature to delegate that power to local governments” ( … see NY Const, art XVI, § 1). “‘[T]he delegation of any part of [the] power [of taxation] to a subdivision of the State must be made in express terms,’ and the delegation of any form of taxation authority ‘cannot be inferred'” … .. “The legislature must describe with specificity the taxes authorized by any enabling statute. In turn, local governments can only levy and collect taxes within the expressed limitations of specific enabling legislation” … .

Here, while the revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021 reference the County’s authority to collect tax map verification fees … , the revisions do not provide an express delegation of taxing authority, nor do they provide for a review mechanism, as is constitutionally required … . Cella v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 05387, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Fees imposed by a county which are not justified by the related expenses may constitute unauthorized taxes.

 

, ,

PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER WAS INJURED WHEN HE BECAME DEHYDRATED DURING TRAINING; HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE THE INJURY DID NOT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF AN UNEXPECTED EVENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner NYC firefighter was not entitled to accidental retirement (ADR) benefits because he was injured performing routine duties and not when responding to an unexpected event. Petitioner suffered an injury to his leg due to dehydration during training:

ADR benefits are awardable only where the individual’s disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident, i.e., “a ‘sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact'” … . Petitioner’s injury was the result of an incidental — not accidental — event … because the injury was sustained while petitioner was performing routine duties, not as a result of an unexpected event … . Dehydration suffered by petitioner while running in hot weather in heavy gear was a foreseeable risk of the firefighting training exercise … . Matter of Rivera v Board of Trustees of N.Y. Fire Dept., 2023 NY Slip Op 05379, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Here a NYC firefighter was injured during training, not as a result of an “unexpected event.” Therefore he was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits.

 

,

A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE CURB WHEN PICKING UP OR DISCHARGING PASSENGERS; THE DRIVER STOPPED TWO FEET FROM THE CURB AND PLAINTIFF FELL TRYING TO GET INTO THE VEHICLE; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE UBER DRIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence action against the driver and owner of an UBER vehicle should not have been dismissed. The driver stopped two feet from the curb and plaintiff tripped trying to get into the vehicle. A NYC regulation requires vehicles-for-hire to be within 12 inches of the curb:

“To hold a defendant liable in common-law negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) that the breach constituted a proximate cause of the injury” …   “Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the finder of fact, liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … .

“A common carrier owes a duty to a passenger to provide a reasonably safe place to board and disembark its vehicle” … . 34 RCNY 4-11(c) requires taxis and for-hire vehicles to be within 12 inches of the curb when picking up or discharging passengers. Porcasi v Oji, 2023 NY Slip Op 05281, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the NYC regulation requiring for-hire vehicle to be within 12 inches of the curb when picking up a passenger created a duty on the part of the driver which was breached when the driver stopped two-feet from the curb. The defendant driver did not demonstrate the breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall and did not demonstrate the driver’s action merely furnished a condition for the fall. Therefore there are questions of fact for the jury.

 

, ,

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT PRESENT A NEW THEORY OF NEGLIGENCE; THE MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim should have been granted. The amendments merely fleshed out the theory of negligence described in the original notice and did not present a new theory of liability:

The purpose of prohibiting new theories of liability in notices of claim is to prevent prejudicing the city in its ability to timely investigate the claim and provide an adequate defense … . Contrary to defendants’ argument, to the extent the notice of claim alleges affirmative negligence, plaintiff did so in the first instance. Plaintiff’s original notice of claim alleged that his injuries were caused by New York City’s “negligent . . . design, maintenance, construction and installation . . .” of the “the traffic island/extra curb/bumper” in question. Plaintiff only adds that his injuries were related to the “design, installation, and maintenance” of the delineators and bollards which are specific elements of the traffic island. This addition only alleges specific facts related to the theories of liability contained in the original claim, unlike in cases cited by defendants … . Accordingly, we find that this amendment does not seek to assert a new theory of liability, and instead merely clarifies the facts alleged in the claim, as permitted by General Municipal Law § 50-e. Burnes v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05221, First Dept 10-17-23

Practice Point: The motion to amend the notice of claim merely fleshed out the theory of negligence in the original notice and did not present a new theory. Therefore the motion should have been granted.

 

, , , ,

CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department sent this case back for a determination whether guarantees at issue are constitutional:

In view of the recent decision in Melendez v City of New York (2023 WL 2746183, 2023 US Dist LEXIS 57050 [SD NY, Mar. 31, 2023, No. 20-CV-5301 (RA)] finding the guaranty law unconstitutional, we remand the constitutional question raised by the parties here so the parties can further develop the record in the trial court for the purpose of applying the Contracts Clause test for constitutionality … . Plaintiff is directed to serve notice on nonparty City of New York under CPLR 1012(b)(2) and file proof of service in order for the City to “intervene in support of its constitutionality” … .

Given the vitality of the constitutional question, we also reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for those amounts the court determined were barred by the guaranty law for a determination following the court’s resolution of the constitutional issue. 45-47-49 Eighth Ave. LLC v Conti, 2023 NY Slip Op 05180, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Supreme Court had held plaintiff’s claim to certain amounts was barred by the guaranty law. A federal court has held the guaranty law unconstitutional. This matter was sent back for a determination of the constitutional question.

 

, , ,

THE PETITIONERS BROUGHT A HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE UNDER ARTICLE 78 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that in a hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment/damages action, the summary procedure under Article 78 does not apply to the declaratory judgment. In order to summarily dispose of the declaratory judgment/damages aspect of the action, a party must request it or the court must notify the parties. Here the petitioners, owners of short-term rental properties, challenged the local law prohibiting rental periods of less than 14 days:

“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 to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand. 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” … . “[W]here no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action”… .

Here, the record contains no indication that the Supreme Court gave notice to the parties that it was contemplating the summary dismissal of the declaratory judgment causes of action, or that the respondents/defendants had made an application for such relief. Therefore, the court erred in summarily disposing the causes of action for declaratory relief … . Matter of Jellyfish Props., LLC v Incorporated Vil. of Greenport, 2023 NY Slip Op 05136, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: In a hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action, the summary procedure available under Article 78 cannot be used to dispose of the declaratory judgment action unless a party requests it or the court so notifies the parties.

 

, ,

THE DRIVER OF THE FIRE ENGINE RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED CAR WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN FROM A LANE TO THE LEFT OF PLAINTIFF; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE FIRE-ENGINE DRIVER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the city was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case involving a fire engine responding to an emergency. Plaintiff had stopped in the right lane and was struck by the fire engine as it made a right turn from the lane to the left of plaintiff, or possibly from the oncoming lane. The Second Department determined the city had demonstrated, as a matter of law, the reckless-disregard standard was not triggered:

“The reckless disregard standard requires evidence that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . “The reckless disregard standard, which requires that a plaintiff show more than a momentary judgment lapse on the part of the defendant, allows emergency personnel to act swiftly and resolutely while at the same time protecting the public’s safety” … .

… [T]he defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the applicable standard of care was reckless disregard, as Roberts [the engine driver] was engaging in conduct specified in Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1104(b)(2) and 1104(b)(4) at the time of the collision … . The defendants further demonstrated, prima facie, that Roberts’s conduct did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Moore v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05128, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: The fact that the fire engine struck plaintiff’s stopped car while making a right turn from a lane to the plaintiff’s left did not raise a question of fact about whether the engine-driver demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ADMITTED WITH COVID, WAS TREATED FOR COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation was immune from a lawsuit stemming from a COVID-19-related death pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [T]he EDTPA initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services” as long as three conditions were met: the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives; and the services were arranged or provided in good faith … . The health care services covered by the immunity provision included those related to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19; the assessment or care of an individual with a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19; and the care of any other individual who presented at a health care facility or to a health care professional during the period of the COVID-19 emergency declaration … . Mera v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04975, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), the defendant health care facility was immune from a lawsuit premised upon admission, treatment and death from COVID-19.

 

, , , , ,

BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW GUARDS, THE DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL WINDOW GUARDS; THEREFORE THE CONDOMINIUM COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER’S FALL FROM THE WINDOW UNDER THE FAILURE-TO-INSTALL THEORY; HOWEVER, THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE CONDOMINIUM’S FAILURE TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF THE CITY’S WINDOW-GUARD REQUIREMENT SURVIVED THE DISMISSAL MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the condominium (Cherry Tower) premised on the failure to install window guards should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ five-year-old daughter fell from the fifth floor window and died. Defendants submitted the deed to the condominium in support of their motion to dismiss. Because plaintiffs owned the condo unit, the defendants had no duty to install window guards. However, the cause of action alleging defendants’ failure to give notice of the window-guard requirements in the NYC Administrative Code properly survived dismissal:

“The characteristics of condominium ownership are individual ownership of a unit, an undivided interest in designated common elements, and an agreement among unit owners regulating the administration and maintenance of property” … . Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the documentary evidence submitted by the Cherry Tower defendants, including the deed demonstrating that the unit owners purchased the subject apartment in 2007 and the condominium bylaws placing the responsibility to install and maintain window guards on the unit owners, conclusively demonstrates that the Cherry Tower defendants had no duty to install window guards in the subject apartment (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2043.1[a]; Real Property Law § 339-ee[1] …).

However, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the Cherry Tower defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as was based on their failure to provide the plaintiff with notice of the window guard requirements. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the Cherry Tower defendants failed in their responsibility to deliver the required notice to the subject apartment (see Administrative Code § 17-123[b]). Kwan v Kuie Chin Yap, 2023 NY Slip Op 05005, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: The individual owners of condominium units are responsible for the installation of window guards. Therefore the condominium itself has no duty to do so. However, in New York City, the condominium must provided the individual owners with notice of the window-guard requirement in the NYC Administrative Code.

 

, ,

THE POLICE OFFICER INJURED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THE CITY SEEKING RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS MADE STEMMING FROM THE OFFICER’S INJURY MUST SHARE THE $100,000 “PER PERSON” INSURANCE-POLICY LIMIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police officer injured in a car accident and the city suing for payments made for the officer’s salary and medical expenses had to share the $100,000 “per person”  policy-limit in the Safeco insurance policy:

… [T]here is a $100,000 policy limit for “each person” sustaining bodily injury. The policy provides that the limit of bodily injury liability for “each person” is the “maximum limit of liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss of services or death, resulting from any one auto accident” for bodily injury not resulting in death of “any one person” (emphasis added). The City here asserted a claim against the tortfeasors pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c (6), which creates a cause of action for municipalities for reimbursement of “such sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care as against any third party against whom the police officer shall have a cause of action for the injury sustained or sickness caused by such third party.” The municipality’s right to recover “is derived from its insured employee’s cause of action in negligence against the person causing such injury,” and the “right to bring the direct action is bottomed on the employee’s cause of action in negligence” … . … [T]he City’s statutory claim and plaintiff’s claim both result from the injuries sustained by plaintiff and are both included in the same $100,000 per person limit of liability in the policy … . Lewczyk v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2023 NY Slip Op 04867, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here, pursuant to the unambiguous terms of the insurance policy, the police officer injured in a traffic accident and the city seeking recovery of the related salary and medical-expense payments must share the $100,000 “per person” insurance-policy limit.

 

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