You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

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.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM JAIL PURSUANT TO CPL 180.80 BUT WAS KEPT INCARCERATED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2 1/2 MONTHS; PLAINTIFF’S FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff sued the town because he was not released from custody pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 180.80:

CPL 180.80 “requires the release of individuals being held in pretrial detention pending action of a Grand Jury after 120 or 144 hours of custody unless, among other neutralizing circumstances, an indictment has been voted” … . * * *

The allegation that the defendant detained the plaintiff for an additional 2½ months after it was required to release him pursuant to CPL 180.80 is a very serious one. This Court notes that the defendant does not deny this allegation outright, but instead attempts to shift blame to the plaintiff for what would, if true, be its own grievous error. McKay v Town of Southampton, 2023 NY Slip Op 04664, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was not released from jail when he was eligible for release pursuant to CPL 180.80. His lawsuit against the town for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed.

 

, , , , ,

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED THE COUNTY’S NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF WHILE SHE WAS IN FOSTER CARE; THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO SOCIAL SERVICES LAW 419 IS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the complaint adequately alleged the defendant county knew or should have known of plaintiff’s foster father’s propensity to commit child abuse. The qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law 419 does not apply to negligent supervision of children in foster care:

“[C]ounties and foster care agencies may be sued to recover damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home” … . “In order to find that a child care agency breached its duty to adequately supervise the children entrusted to its care, a plaintiff must establish that the agency had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … .

Here, the complaint, which asserted that the abuse was foreseeable, inter alia, because the County knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the foster father’s propensity to engage in the sexual abuse of children, sufficiently alleged that the County had notice of the dangerous conduct at issue such that the abuse could reasonably have been anticipated … . Moreover, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the County was negligent in failing to ensure that proper safeguards were in place so as to ensure the safety of the plaintiff in the foster home … .

… [T]he County was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care … . Grabowski v Orange County, 2023 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: In this Child Victim’s Act case, the complaint adequately alleged the county knew or should have known of her foster father’s propensity to commit child abuse. The qualified immunity in Social Services Law 419 does not apply to negligent supervision of children in foster care.

 

,

A MUNICIPALITY HAS A DUTY TO INSPECT TREES ADJACENT TO ROADWAYS EVEN IF THE TREES ARE NOT ON THE MUNICIPALITY’S LAND; HERE THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFFS CAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town’s motion for summary judgment in this falling-tree traffic-accident case should not have been granted. Although the tree which fell on plaintiff’s car was on private property, it was adjacent to the road. A municipality has a duty to inspect trees adjacent to roads and the town failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the tree:

“A municipality’s duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition encompasses those trees, adjacent to the roads, which could reasonably be expected to pose a danger to travelers. However, liability will not attach unless the municipality had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and subsequently failed to take reasonable measures to correct the condition” … . “Municipalities also possess a common-law duty to inspect trees adjacent to their roadways” … .

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . “Where there is no evidence that the tree showed any visible, outward signs of decay prior to the accident, it cannot be said that the municipality had constructive notice of a defect. Rather, a manifestation of decay must be readily observable in order to give rise to a duty to prevent harm” … . Jourdain v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 04421, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: A town has a duty to inspect trees which are adjacent to roads, even if the trees are on private property. Here the town did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the condition of the tree which fell on plaintiff’s car.

 

, , ,

DISMISSAL OF THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT DID NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOP PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN STATE COURT PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYCHRL) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of the hostile work environment causes of action by the federal court did not collaterally estop plaintiff’s hostile work environment cause of action in state court pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL):

Supreme Court erred in granting dismissal of the cause of action alleging hostile work environment pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5). The District Court analyzed the hostile work environment claims under the standards set by Title VII and NYSHRL, and determined that those claims were neither “pervasive” nor “extraordinarily severe.” Under NYCHRL, a claimant must only prove that they were “treated less well than other employees” because of their gender … . As the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment and improper touching could constitute “more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences” without rising to the level of being severe and pervasive, Supreme Court should not have granted dismissal of this cause of action pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel … . Domingo v Avis Budget Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04463, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: The New York City Human Rights Law has less stringent standards for a hostile work environment cause of action than those required by the New York State Human Rights Law.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE MERELY REPEATED HER EARLIER ARGUMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COURT HAD OVERLOOKED OR MISUNDERSTOOD FACTS OR LAW; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to reargue the summary judgment motion in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Supreme Court had originally granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on the ground it did not have written notice of the dangerous condition. After the motion to reargue was granted, Supreme Court denied the city’s motion. Because the motion to reargue did not present new information and merely repeated the earlier arguments, it should have been denied:

A motion for leave to reargue “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[d][2]). “Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the prior motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some other reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision” … . However, “[a] motion for leave to reargue is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally presented” … . * * *

In support of her motion for leave to reargue, the plaintiff merely repeated her earlier arguments and did not demonstrate that the Supreme Court had overlooked or misapprehended any matter of fact or law in rendering the prior determination … . Hallett v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 04367, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: A motion to reargue must be based on law or facts allegedly overlooked or misunderstood by the court. Here the motion merely repeated earlier arguments and, therefore, the motion should not have been granted.

 

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