You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY WHEN ENGAGED IN THE PROPRIETARY FUNCTION OF MAINTAINING ROADS; IN THE ABSENCE OF A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE RISKS OF A HIGHWAY DESIGN, THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the city in this intersection traffic accident case was not entitled to governmental function immunity or qualified immunity. Plaintiff motorcyclist alleged the city, during roadway construction, had removed roadway markings and signs creating confusion for drivers and contributing to the accident:

The City is not entitled to governmental function immunity, as it was engaged in the proprietary function of maintaining the roadways at the time of the accident … . Nor is the City entitled to qualified immunity, given the absence of any evidence in the record that a study of the risks involved had been conducted … . Floricic v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00055, First Dept 1-10-23

Practice Point: In this intersection traffic accident case there was a question of fact whether the city’s removal of traffic markings and signs during construction was a proximate cause of the accident. Roadwork is a proprietary function so the city was not entitled to governmental function immunity. There was no study of roadway design so the city was not entitled to qualified immunity.

 

,

THE CONDEMNATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY WAS NOT FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING STATUTES; THE DETERMINATION TO CONDEMN THE PROPERTY WAS ANNULLED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, annulling the determination to condemn real property, over an extensive dissent, held that the purpose for the condemnation was not “commercial” as required by the statutes authorizing condemnation by the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA):

Petitioners commenced this original proceeding pursuant to EDPL [Eminent Domain Procedure Law] 207 seeking to annul the determination of respondent Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) to condemn certain real property by eminent domain. Pursuant to EDPL 207 (C), this Court “shall either confirm or reject the condemnor’s determination and findings.” Our scope of review is limited to “whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) the condemnor had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with [the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)] and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use” … .

… OCIDA lacked the requisite authority to acquire the subject property. As an industrial development agency, OCIDA’s statutory purposes are … to “promote, develop, encourage and assist in the acquiring . . . [of] . . . commercial . . . facilities” (General Municipal Law § 858). OCIDA’s powers of eminent domain are restricted by General Municipal Law § 858 (4), which provides, in relevant part, that an industrial development agency shall have the power “[t]o acquire by purchase, grant, lease, gift, pursuant to the provisions of the eminent domain procedure law, or otherwise and to use, real property . . . therein necessary for its corporate purposes.” The purposes enumerated in the statute do not include projects related to hospital or healthcare-related facilities (see § 858). While OCIDA’s determination and findings indicate that the subject property was to be acquired for use as a surface parking lot, the record establishes that, contrary to respondents’ assertion, the primary purpose of the acquisition was not a commercial purpose. Rather, the property was to be acquired because it was a necessary component of a larger hospital and healthcare facility project. Matter of Bowers Dev., LLC v Oneida County Indus. Dev. Agency, 2022 NY Slip Op 07327, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: If the purpose for the condemnation of real property does not comply with the purposes allowed by the controlling states, the determination to condemn the property will be annulled by the courts.

 

,

IN ORDER TO OBTAIN TITLE TO THE VACANT BUILDING AT A SHOPPING MALL UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL), THE TOWN MUST SPECIFY THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WILL BE USED; THE TOWN’S FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE PUBLIC PURPOSE WAS FATAL TO THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lindley, annulling the determination authorizing the condemnation of a vacant building at a shopping mall, held that the town’s acknowledgment that it did not know how the building would be used was fatal to condemnation proceeding:

Petitioner challenges the taking … contending … that neither the condemnation notice nor the Town’s determination and findings specifically identifies or describes a legitimate public project, as required by EDPL [Eminent Domain Procedure Law] 207 (C) (3). We agree. Indeed, the Town readily acknowledges that it has not yet decided what to do with the property after obtaining title, and the notice merely states that “[t]he proposed Acquisition is required for and is in connection with a certain project . . . consisting of facilitating the productive reuse and redevelopment of the vacant and underutilized Proposed Site through municipal and/or economic development projects . . . by attracting and accommodating new tenant(s) and/or end user(s).” In its determination and findings, the Town stated that “no specific future uses or actions have been formulated and/or specifically identified.”

Because the Town has not indicated what it intends to do with the property, we are unable to determine whether “the acquisition will serve a public use” … . Of course, “[t]he existence of a public use, benefit, or purpose underlying a condemnation is a sine qua non” to the government’s ability to exercise its powers to take private property through eminent domain … . Matter of HBC Victor LLC v Town of Victor, 2022 NY Slip Op 07313, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: In order for a municipality to obtain title to property pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, the public purpose for the town’s use of the properly must be specified. Here the town sought ownership of a vacant building at a shopping mall but acknowledged it did not know how the property would be used. The determination authorizing condemnation of the property was annulled.

 

, , , ,

BOTH PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER AND THE DRIVER OF THE CAR WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S BUS WERE DEEMED COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN A RELATED PROCEEDING; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel required the dismissal of plaintiff bus-driver’s causes of action against the estate of driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s county bus, and against Jewish Family Services (JFS) for whom the decedent-driver was volunteering at the time of the accident. JFS and the county collaborated on a program to drive senior citizens to medical appointments. Plaintiff sued JFS under a respondeat superior theory. Pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, workers’ compensation benefits were plaintiff’s exclusive remedy because both she and the driver of the car had been deemed county employees in a related action:

A review of the papers supporting [the county’s] cross motion [in the related proceeding] establishes, however, that [the county] focused upon the provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Plaintiff thereafter had a full and fair opportunity to respond to that issue, which was discussed at length in the 2019 order. Indeed, Supreme Court … expressly held that the provisions of that statute applied because “both [plaintiff] and Hyde were within the same employ and acting within the scope of employment at the time the alleged injuries occurred, therefore rendering them co-employees which results in workers’ compensation being the exclusive remedy.” Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde were coemployees was “actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided” against plaintiff … .

Plaintiff’s claim against JFS is premised upon the theory that JFS exercised sufficient control over Hyde to render it vicariously liable for her negligence. The issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde are coemployees has been resolved against plaintiff with preclusive effect, however, and plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the negligence of Hyde is therefore workers’ compensation benefits. As noted above, as Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) “deprive[s] the injured employee of a right to maintain an action against a negligent coemployee, [it also] bars a derivative action which necessarily is dependent upon the same claim of negligence for which the exclusive remedy has been provided” … . Thus, as “plaintiff[] did not assert any allegation that [JFS] had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence,” the cross motion of JFS for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it should have been granted … . Bryant v Gulnick, 2022 NY Slip Op 07284, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In a related proceeding it was determined that both plaintiff bus driver and the driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s bus were county employees. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

, , ,

HYDE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, LOST CONTROL AND CROSSED INTO THE PATH OF AN ONCOMING COUNTY BUS; HYDE WAS FATALLY INJURED AND PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the complaint against Bryant, the driver of the county bus involved in the accident, should have been dismissed. The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, Hyde, lost control of the car and crossed into the path of the oncoming bus. Hyde was fatally injured and plaintiff had no memory of the accident:

Bryant stated in her affidavit and deposition testimony that a mixture of snow and ice was falling in the leadup to the accident and that, although the road was coated in snow, she was still able to see the center line and fog lines. Bryant added that she was travelling two to five miles below the speed limit and was comfortable driving the bus in the weather conditions. As for the accident itself, Bryant stated that Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane about 1½ car lengths in front of the bus and that she had a second to react before striking it, as well as that she had “nowhere to go” to evade Hyde’s vehicle and that she lightly applied her brakes in an effort to slow down without losing control of the bus. Plaintiff had no recollection of the accident, and nothing else in the record, including the police accident report, contradicted Bryant’s version of events. Bryant accordingly established that she reacted reasonably when Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane of traffic, and plaintiff’s speculation that Bryant might have been able to avoid the collision had she been driving even further below the speed limit or taken other evasive action despite having “at most, a few seconds to react,” did not raise a question of fact … . Northacker v County of Ulster, 2022 NY Slip Op 07285, Third dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The only evidence of the accident was that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger crossed into the path of the oncoming county bus and the bus driver had only a second to react. The county’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the bus driver should have been granted.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, WERE DEEMED PROTECTED FROM SUIT BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW; WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined qualified immunity protected plaintiff’s supervisors in this hostile-work-environment action under 42 USC 1983 and the NYS Human Rights Law against the City of Albany and individual city employees. Plaintiff alleged a co-worker named Tierney made sexually inappropriate comments to her over a period of two years. The allegations against Tierney properly survived summary judgment, but the allegations against the defendants who played no role in the harassment, alleging supervisory inaction, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff had worked as a civilian dispatcher in the police department:

In the 42 USC § 1983 context, liability of an individual defendant is based on his or her “personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation” … . Individual defendant liability only attaches when his or her own conduct is sufficiently severe and pervasive to create the hostile work environment; otherwise, that defendant is protected by qualified immunity … . * * *

Under state law, public officials are protected by qualified immunity for discretionary acts that are unlawful under the Human Rights Law unless “they are undertaken in bad faith or without reasonable basis” … . Hostile work environment claims under the Human Rights Law are evaluated under the same severe-or-pervasive standard as a claim brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 … .* * *

Although individual liability under 42 USC § 1983 may flow from a supervisor’s inaction in the face of known harassment … , the alleged individual inaction … did not suffice to create the hostile work environment … .

We reach the same conclusion … under the Human Rights Law, pursuant to which supervisors may be held individually liable to the extent that they aided and abetted conduct creating a hostile work environment (see Executive Law § 296 [6]). … [D]efendants[] … did not actively participate in the conduct creating the hostile work environment as required under the aiding-and-abetting provision … .

Even if plaintiff’s Human Rights Law claim against them could proceed under a supervisory inaction theory, we would conclude that they are shielded by qualified immunity. … . Mahoney v City of Albany, 2022 NY Slip Op 07288, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff and defendants were city employees. Plaintiff alleged one employee made sexually inappropriate comments to her over a two year period. Supervisory inaction was the basis for the action against other defendants. The Third Department held the “supervisory-inaction” defendants were protected from suit by qualified immunity as a matter of law under both 42 USC 1983 and the NYS Human Rights Law. There were questions of fact about whether the employee who made the comments was protected by qualified immunity.

 

, ,

THE SO-ORDERED STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RENDERED THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT MOOT; THE OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION RELIED ON SPECULATION ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined; (1) the stipulation between the two parties rendered the related cause of action in the complaint moot’ and (2) the other cause of action in the complaint was based on speculation about future events and therefore was not ripe for judicial review:

… [P]ursuant to the mootness doctrine, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” … . By contrast, if an “anticipated harm is insignificant, remote or contingent the controversy is not ripe” for judicial review … . “To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” … .

… [T]he first cause of action was resolved by the parties’ so-ordered stipulation. … [T]hat cause of action was rendered academic pursuant to the mootness doctrine … . … [T]he second cause of action relied on speculation about what the County and its various departments might do in response to future audits, and therefore the contemplated harm was both remote and contingent and the controversy was not ripe for judicial review … . Kennedy v Suffolk County, 2022 NY Slip Op 07226, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: If a cause of action has already been addressed by a so-ordered stipulation, the cause of action is precluded by the mootness doctrine. If a cause of action is based on speculation about future events, it is not ripe for judicial review.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR DEFAULT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE NEED BE SHOWN IN A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317; DEFAULT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s (St. Andrews’) motion to vacate the default judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. St. Andrews had not updated its address with the Secretary of State and did not have a reasonable excuse. However a reasonable excuse is not required by CPLR 317:

St. Andrews’s principal demonstrated that he had received a letter notification of plaintiff’s accident before commencement of the action which he forwarded to his insurance broker, but that he never received any further notice until he received the information subpoena. The principal of DP Realty [designated by St. Andrews to receive service of process] also averred that he was unaware of the summons and complaint ever having been received, and therefore it would not have forwarded any papers to St. Andrews. That evidence was sufficient under CPLR 317 to establish St. Andrews’s lack of personal notice of the summons in time to defend. St. Andrews also demonstrated a meritorious defense in that the Yonkers City Code “does not expressly make the landowner liable for failure to perform” the duty to clean snow and ice from the sidewalk, and an abutting landowner is not liable in the absence of such a statute for failure to clear snow, ice and dirt … .

… [P]laintiff demonstrated that St. Andrews never updated its address with the Secretary of State, and thus could not show a reasonable excuse for its default under CPLR 5015(a)(1). However, no showing of a reasonable excuse is required under CPLR 317 … , and it cannot be inferred solely from the failure to update defendant’s address with the Secretary of State that defendant was deliberately avoiding receiving notice … . In light of the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits … , we find that St. Andrews demonstrated entitlement to vacatur under CPLR 317… . Gomez v Karyes Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07187, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: No reasonable excuse for a default need be shown in a motion the vacate the default pursuant to CPLR 317, Here the defendant’s failure to update its address for the service of process with the Secretary of State was not an attempt to avoid service. The motion to vacate the default should have been granted.

 

, , , ,

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY NO LONGER HAS THE REQUISITE CONNECTION TO RELIGION AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE PRIDE ALLIANCE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION AS AN OFFICIAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a student group (Pride Alliance) at Yeshiva University was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law (City HRL)on its claims asserting gender, sexual orientation, and association discrimination. In addition Pride Alliance was entitled to a permanent injunction requiring Yeshiva to recognize the group as an official student organization. Essentially, Yeshiva argued the university was exempt from the requirements of the City HRL as a religious corporation or institution, but the university no longer had the requisite connection to religion: Yeshiva’s constitutional arguments (free exercise of religion, freedom of expression and association) were rejected:

Yeshiva was originally chartered in 1897 under the Membership Corporations Law as the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Association (RIETS), with the stated purpose to “promote the study of Talmud” and prepare Orthodox Jewish rabbis for ministry. Over several decades, the charter was amended to allow numerous secular degrees to be awarded and to change the name of the institution, while RIETS remained part of Yeshiva. In 1967, Yeshiva amended its charter to become incorporated under the Education Law. Two years later it amended the charter to drop Hebrew Literature and Religious Education degrees, since RIETS was being spun off as its own corporation offering those degrees, and to “clarify the corporate status of the University as a non-denominational institution of higher learning.” While Yeshiva is now comprised of three undergraduate colleges and seven graduate schools, RIETS remains a separate corporate entity housed on one of Yeshiva’s campuses. YU Pride Alliance v Yeshiva Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 07175, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Yeshiva University was not entitled to exemption from the discrimination prohibitions in the NYC Human Rights Law because the university no longer has the requisite connection to religion. Therefore the “Pride Alliance” was entitled to recognition as an official student group.

 

, , ,

THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A COMPENSATION TO WHICH RETIRED PERMANENTLY DISABLED YONKERS FIREFIGHTERS ARE ENTITLED UNTIL RETIREMENT AGE IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the amount of General Municipal Law 207-a compensation to which retired permanently disable Yonkers firefighters are entitled until reaching retirement age is subject to arbitration under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA):

If there is a “reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA,” the matter is arbitrable, leaving the arbitrator to “make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them” … . Here, the Union argues that both Appendix C and Article 31 of the CBA demonstrate that the parties agreed to arbitrate the present grievance.

Appendix C, which is entitled, “General Municipal Law Section 207-a Procedure,” contains six pages of detailed terms to which Yonkers and the Union agreed, including very broad provisions granting the arbitrator “authority to decide, de novo, the claim of entitlement [and continued entitlement] to [section] 207-a benefits.” It further provides that when “the matter presents a termination of [section] 207-a benefits, the Fire Department shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the member is no longer eligible for [section] 207-a benefits.” The Union’s grievance reasonably relates to these provisions because they provide for the arbitration of disputes over General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits, and the Union contends that Yonkers is attempting to terminate such benefits by withholding special pays. Matter of City of Yonkers v Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 2022 NY Slip Op 07095, CtApp 12-15-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals applied black-letter law to conclude the amount of General Municipal Law 207-a compensation to which retired permanently disabled Yonkers firefighters are entitled until retirement age is subject to arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement.

 

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