You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

RETIRED PERMANENTLY DISABLED YONKERS FIREFIGHTERS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE HOLIDAY PAY AND CHECK-IN PAY INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED UNTIL RETIREMENT AGE; NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED (CT APP). ​

​The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined retired Yonkers firefighters (Retirees) , who are permanently disabled, are entitled to have holiday pay and check-in pay included in the amount of compensation they receive until reaching retirement age. The retired, disabled firefighters are not entitled to have “night differential” pay included, however:

General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) provides that, for firefighters who are permanently disabled due to work-related injuries and receiving certain benefits from the state, a municipality must make up the difference between those benefits and the firefighter’s “regular salary or wages” until the firefighter reaches the mandatory retirement age. Since at least 1995, the CBAs have provided for holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, which collectively the parties refer to as “special pays.” … Until 2015, Yonkers included all three of these payments when calculating the Retirees’ section 207-a (2) supplements. * * *

Unlike check-in and holiday pay, the Retirees have not established whether all firefighters are contractually entitled to receive night differential pay … . Night differential contains two express conditions: it is earned only by “firefighters who are regularly scheduled to work rotating tours that include the 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. night tour, and only to firefighters actually working that night tour.” The restriction of this payment to those firefighters who “actually work[] the night tour” strongly suggests that night differential must be specially earned, not paid to all, rendering it distinct from “regular salary or wages,” and the Retirees have not demonstrated that the CBAs [collective bargaining agreements] require all firefighters to work the night tour. Thus, the Retirees have not demonstrated that all firefighters are entitled to earn the night differential such that it should be included in the section 207-a (2) calculation. Matter of Borelli v City of Yonkers, 2022 NY Slip Op 07094, CtApp 12-15-22

Practice Point: Permanently disabled Yonkers firefighters are entitled to have holiday pay and check-in pay, but not night differential pay, included in the compensation they are to receive until retirement age.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant homeowners were not entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Apparently the raised part of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property, but much of that same flag abutted defendants’ property. Because the village code placed responsibility on the homeowners to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition, in order to warrant summary judgment, the defendants were required to demonstrate they maintained the portion of the sidewalk in front of their property in a reasonable safe condition or that the failure to do so was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. Defendants offered no evidence on that issue:

While the homeowners demonstrated that the section of the sidewalk containing the defect on which the plaintiff allegedly tripped did not abut their property, their submissions in support of their motion also included evidence that the sidewalk flag on one side of the defect—which was not level with the adjacent flag, resulting in the height differential on which the plaintiff tripped—extended several feet onto their side of the property line. To meet their prima facie burden, the homeowners were “required to do more than simply demonstrate that the alleged defect was on another landowner’s property” … . They were required to make a prima facie showing that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk abutting their own property in a reasonably safe condition, or that any failure to do so was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Kuritsky v Meshenberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 07066, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here the village code placed responsibility for maintaining sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition on the abutting property owners. The raised portion of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property. But several feet of that same sidewalk flag extended in front of defendants’ property. To warrant summary the defendants were required to show either that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk which abutted their property in a reasonably safe condition, or that the failure to do so was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. The defendants presented no evidence on the issue.

 

, ,

THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “unsafe intersection design” cause of action against the city in this traffic accident case should not have been dismissed. The city was not entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence any studies of the intersection had been undertaken or any highway-planning decision concerning the intersection had been made. The court noted the fact that the city had no notice the intersection was unsafe and no accidents had been reported did not warrant summary judgment on whether the city had created a dangerous condition:

… [W]here the initial traffic design is challenged, the municipality must show that there was a reasonable basis for the traffic plan in the first instance … . As the City defendants failed to establish that the original design of the subject intersection was based on a deliberative decision-making process which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that the plaintiff would put to a jury, the City defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity … .

… [T]he lack of prior similar accidents or notice did not establish the City defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under ordinary negligence principles. Since the City defendants created the alleged dangerous condition with their design of the intersection, “the ‘usual questions of notice of the condition are irrelevant'” … . … [T]he lack of prior similar accidents within the five years preceding the plaintiff’s accident did not establish, by itself, that the intersection was reasonably safe. Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists “depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . A lack of prior accidents “is some evidence that a condition is not dangerous or unsafe” … . However, it is only a factor to be considered and does not negate the possibility of negligence … . Petronic v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: In an “unsafe intersection design” case, the municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity unless a study of the intersection had been undertaken and a highway-planning decision concerning the intersection had been made.

Practice Point: Because it was alleged the city created the dangerous intersection, the lack of notice and prior accidents did not warrant summary judgment dismissing the negligent-design cause of action.

 

,

PLAINTIFF-TENANT’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S STIPULATION WITH THE PRIOR TENANT IN 2000 ILLEGALLY DECONTROLLED THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed. “Plaintiff, the current tenant of the subject apartment, commenced this action seeking a declaration that her tenancy is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) and that the premises were illegally decontrolled in 2000 when defendant owner and nonparty Edward McKinney reached a ‘private agreement’ circumventing initial rent registration procedures for decontrolling the apartment.” The decision and the dissent are detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

An agreement by a tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the rent control law is expressly prohibited and void (9 NYCRR 2200.15 …). However, when McKinney and defendant settled their dispute over McKinney’s status, McKinney was not a tenant … . He was not on the lease and had no evident rights, other than being an occupant of the apartment who claimed that he had succession rights when Brown died. … Defendant, on the other hand, denied that McKinney was anything other than a squatter/licensee or possible roommate of the deceased. By entering into the 2000 stipulation, both sides, represented by counsel, resolved their dispute as to whether McKinney had any statutory right to the apartment. By doing so, McKinney and defendant chose the certainty of settlement, rather than the uncertainty of a judicial declaration about McKinney’s status … .

From the dissent:

… I would find that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that the stipulation that McKinney and defendant executed in 2000 (the 2000 stipulation) was void under applicable statutes, as interpreted by our Court and the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, I would vote to affirm the portion of the motion court’s decision that denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, third and fourth causes of action. Liggett v Lew Realty LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07000, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff-tenant alleged defendant-landlord illegally decontrolled the apartment in 2000 by entering an agreement (a stipulation) with the prior tenant. The majority held the complaint did not state a cause of action. The two dissenters disagreed.

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER VIOLATED THE RECKLESS-DISREGARD-FOR-THE-SAFETY-OF-OTHERS STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE VEHICLES IN PURSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant police officer, Benbow, violated the reckless disregard standard of care in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff was the driver’s partner in the police car which collided with another car in an intersection when the driver was pursuing a car with excessively tinted windows:

… [There is] a triable issue of fact as to whether Benbow acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. In contrast to Benbow’s deposition testimony that he stopped at the red light and looked in both directions before slowly proceeding into the intersection against the red light, the plaintiff testified at her deposition that she and Benbow were responding to a call of a security alarm at a school, that Benbow did not stop before entering the intersection, that he was going to turn right and looked only to the left, that after he had entered the intersection he said that he “saw something” and suddenly accelerated and turned to the left, without ever looking to the right, that the plaintiff saw Ilyaich’s vehicle and said “watch out,” and that in response, Benbow then looked to the right, but did not attempt to move the police vehicle away from the collision … . Thompson v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06733, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: In this case there was no dispute that the reckless disregard standard applied to the police officer driving the police car in which plaintiff, his partner, was a passenger. There was a question of fact whether the driver violated the reckless disregard standard leading to a collision in an intersection.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE POLICE HAD VISITED PLAINTIFF SEVERAL TIMES IN RESPONSE TO HER CALLS ABOUT HER EX-BOYFRIEND’S VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AND THE POLICE HAD SPOKEN TO HER EX-BOYFRIEND (WHO LIVED DIRECTLY ABOVE HER), THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE POLICE SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE POLICE FOR PROTECTION; HER EX-BOYFRIEND SUBSEQUENTLY THREW HER OUT OF A SECOND-FLOOR WINDOW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over two extensive dissenting opinions, determined the fact plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend was subject to an order of protection at the time he attacked her and threw her out of a second-floor window did not create a special relationship with the police such that the municipality would be liable for failing to protect her. The majority concluded plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on any police promises that her ex-boyfriend would be arrested for violating the order of protection. “Justifiable reliance” is an essential element of a special relationship:

… [Plaintiff] failed to raise a triable issue concerning the “critical” fourth element of an assumed special duty … . Plaintiff testified during her deposition that she had no contact with the police on the day of the incident prior to the attack, that her ex-boyfriend was in fact at liberty that day, and that the officers never told her that her ex-boyfriend would be arrested for violating the order of protection. Plaintiff’s own testimony demonstrates that she did not relax her vigilance based on any police promises that her ex-boyfriend would be arrested for violating the order of protection. It also shows that the police were not on the scene or in a position to provide assistance if necessary … , nor had they promised to “provide assistance at some reasonable time” … . In these circumstances, plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on any promises made or actions taken by defendants.

From Judge Wilson’s dissent:

Mr. Gaskin [the ex-boyfriend] had violently assaulted Ms. Howell [plaintiff] before, beginning when she was pregnant with their child. The first time he assaulted her, he threw her on the floor and kicked her stomach, causing her to bleed and require hospitalization. On the basis of that assault, Ms. Howell obtained an order of protection against Mr. Gaskin, requiring him to stay away from and not communicate with her. Based on Mr. Gaskin’s subsequent conduct, Ms. Howell obtained seven additional orders of protection against him, the most recent of which issued less than two months before Mr. Gaskin threw her out of the window. How did it happen that a woman who obtained eight orders of protection against the same abuser wound up unprotected? * * *

In the week before Mr. Gaskin threw Ms. Howell out of the window, Ms. Howell called the police several times to report that Mr. Gaskin was violating the order of protection. … The officers told Ms. Howell that they would “ensure . . . that [Mr. Gaskin] would be removed from the premises.” The officers spoke to Mr. Gaskin, who told the officers that he would leave his apartment [which was above Ms. Howell’s] and stay at his uncle’s house. … The officers made Ms. Howell “feel assured he won’t be coming back.” Howell v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06633, CtApp 11-22-22

Practice Point: Although plaintiff had repeatedly made the police aware of her ex-boyfriend’s violations of the order of protection and the police had promised to arrest him, the majority concluded there was no special relationship between the police and plaintiff such that plaintiff could have justifiably relied on police protection. Ultimately, the ex-boyfriend, who lived directly above plaintiff, threw plaintiff out of a second-floor window. There were two strong dissenting opinions.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TORTURED AND MURDERED IN HER HOME BY HER MOTHER AND BROTHER; ALTHOUGH COUNTY AUTHORITIES HAD BEEN CALLED TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED INJURIES AND SHERIFFS HAD RETURNED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO HER HOME AFTER SHE RAN AWAY, THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON INTERVENTION BY COUNTY AUTHORITIES (CT APP).

​The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about the existence of a special relationship between plaintiff’s decedent, Laura, and the county such that the county could be liable for the torture and murder of Laura by her mother, Eva, and brother, Luke. Laura, was a 23-year-old woman with developmental disabilities. Laura’s brother, Richard, called county authorities about injuries to his sister. Richard’s allegations were investigated and deemed unfounded. On one occasion Laura ran away from home after an argument with her mother and was returned by county sheriffs. The Court of Appeals held there was nothing about the way the authorities investigated Laura’s alleged injuries and Laura’s running away which met the criteria for a special relationship creating “justifiable reliance” on intervention by county authorities:

… [T]o establish that the government voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what it generally owes to the public, the plaintiff must establish: ” ‘(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking’ ” … .

“[A]ll four elements must be present for a special duty to attach” … .

… [T]he justifiable reliance element “provides the essential causative link between the ‘special duty’ assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury. Indeed, at the heart of most of these ‘special duty’ cases is the unfairness that the courts have perceived in precluding recovery when a municipality’s voluntary undertaking has lulled the injured party into a false sense of security and has thereby induced [the injured party] either to relax [their] own vigilance or to forego other available avenues of protection” …

Months before her death, both CPS [Child Protective Services] and APS [Adult Protective Services] investigated the reports that Laura was being abused, concluded that those reports were unfounded, closed their investigations, and advised Richard that the investigations were closed and would not be reopened without new information. … Richard “did not in fact relax his own vigilance inasmuch as he made two follow-up calls to the APS caseworker asking her to reopen the investigation, and he was not induced to forego other avenues of relief” … . Similarly, the Sheriff’s deputies took no action that could have induced reliance. Maldovan v County of Erie, 2022 NY Slip Op 06632, Ct App 11-22-22

Practice Point: Under the “special relationship” theory, to hold a municipality liable for failing to intervene to protect a plaintiff from injury by family members, the plaintiff must demonstrate a special relationship had developed with the county such that the plaintiff could justifiably rely on intervention by the municipality. No such ‘justifiable reliance” was demonstrated in this case where a developmentally disabled young woman was tortured and murdered by her mother and brother. County authorities had investigated allegations plaintiff’s decedent had been injured, but the allegations were deemed unfounded. The fact that county sheriff’s had returned plaintiff’s decedent to her home after she had run away because of an argument with her mother was not enough.

 

, ,

THE BIG APPLE MAP RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WAS AMENDED TO FIX A DEFICIENCY IN PLEADING THAT THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the Big Apple map provided the city with written notice of the sidewalk defect alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall; (2) the city’s evidence to the contrary was improperly first submitted in reply; (3) the plaintiff was entitled to amend the complaint to correct the deficiency in pleading the city had written notice of the sidewalk defect:

In support of its summary judgment motion, the City submitted evidence, including the most recent Big Apple Map received by the City prior to plaintiff’s accident, and argued that the Map did not depict the type of sidewalk defect that plaintiff testified caused her accident.

Based on all the evidence submitted, including the Big Apple Map and photographs of the sidewalk defect, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City had prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . The City’s contention that the Big Apple Map had been rendered inapplicable by subsequent sidewalk repairs is unavailing. Aside from the fact that this argument was improperly raised for the first time on reply, the City’s submissions indicated that the defect remained unchanged. Further, the issue of whether the Big Apple Map was sufficiently close in time to provide prior written notice, and whether the area had remained unchanged, was a question for the jury … . Bchakjan v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06543, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: In NYC, a Big Apple map may provide the city with written notice of a sidewalk defect.

 

, ,

WHETHER THE VILLAGE POLICE WERE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR WORK DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IS ARBITRABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the issue whether the village police were entitled to additional compensation for work during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic is arbitrable:

Where the relevant arbitration provision is broad, a court “should merely determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]” … . If such a relationship exists, “the court should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then 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” … .

… [T]he Village’s petition was grounded on its contention that the dispute in this case is not arbitrable because article V, § 4 of the CBA provides for additional compensation when the mayor of the Village declares “a holiday for Village employees due to an emergency,” and no such declaration was made by the mayor here. The petition further asserted that arbitration would be against public policy because the “members of the PBA are seeking to extract a benefit to which they clearly are not entitled and which is not contained in their contract.” These contentions are without merit, since the applicability of article V, § 4 of the CBA does not affect the arbitrability of the dispute, but only the merits of the dispute, and the merits are to be determined by the arbitrator and not by the courts … . Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park v Floral Park Police Benevolent Assn., 2022 NY Slip Op 06481, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: Whether a matter is arbitrable is separate and distinct from whether the dispute has merit, which is determined by the arbitrator.

 

,

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ALLEGED THE NEGLIGENCE OF A TRAFFIC OFFICER IN DIRECTING TRAFFIC CAUSED THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND PLAINTIFF, A PREREQUISITE FOR MUNICIPAL LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-pedestrian’s complaint against the city in this traffic accident case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the traffic officer’s negligence in directing traffic caused the accident. The First Department found there was no demonstration of a “special relationship” between plaintiff and the city, a prerequisite for municipal liability:

Neither the notice of claim nor the complaint alleges the factual predicate for the special relationship theory between plaintiff and the City, as required to hold the City liable for plaintiff’s injuries based on a traffic officer’s alleged negligence in directing traffic and pedestrians at an intersection where plaintiff was crossing the street … . Plaintiff also did not sufficiently allege that the officer, in directing traffic, took control of “a known and dangerous safety condition” so as to set forth the existence of a special duty … . Plaintiff alleged only that the traffic officer negligently directed a vehicle at the intersection, causing the vehicle to hit her, thereby creating a dangerous condition; however, the dangerous condition must exist prior to the traffic officer’s assumption of any duty … . Plaintiff did not assert that the intersection was inherently dangerous or that the drivers of the cars at the intersection were violating any safety laws before the officer was directing pedestrians. Polito v Escorcia, 2022 NY Slip Op 06447, First Dept 11-15-22

Practice Point: In this pedestrian accident case, the plaintiff alleged the negligence of the traffic officer in directing traffic caused the accident. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a special relationship between the city and plaintiff, a prerequisite for municipal liability.

 

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