You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

THE CITY’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S SALE OF UNSTAMPED, UNTAXED CIGARETTES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-city’s complaint stated a cause of action for public nuisance against defendant City Tobacco House for selling unstamped, untaxed cigarettes:

… [T]he complaint alleged that City Tobacco House was a commercial establishment where several violations of Tax Law § 1814(b) and Administrative Code § 11-4012(b) had occurred during the six-month period preceding the commencement of this action. On one occasion, law enforcement officers allegedly recovered 8.4 cartons of untaxed cigarettes at the subject premises, and one person was arrested and charged with violating Tax Law § 1814. On another occasion, 28 packs of untaxed cigarettes allegedly were recovered from the subject premises, and one person was arrested and charged with violating Tax Law § 1814. On two other occasions, an undercover police officer allegedly purchased one pack of untaxed cigarettes from an employee in the subject premises. On another occasion, the execution of a search warrant at the subject premises allegedly resulted in the seizure of 64 packs of untaxed cigarettes and the arrest of one person. * * *

The allegations of unlawful conduct … , along with the allegation in the complaint that City Tobacco House knowingly conducted or maintained the subject premises as a place where persons gathered for purposes of engaging in conduct that violated Tax Law § 1814 and Administrative Code § 11-4012(b), were sufficient to allege the commission of criminal nuisance in the second degree, as defined in Penal Law § 240.45. Thus, having alleged facts supporting the proposition that City Tobacco House was a place “wherein there is occurring a criminal nuisance as defined in section 240.45 of the penal law” (Administrative Code § 7-703[l]), the complaint validly alleged the existence of a public nuisance at the subject premises. City of New York v Land & Bldg. Known as 4802 4th Ave., 2022 NY Slip Op 05988, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here the city’s allegation defendant sold unstamped, untaxed cigarettes stated a cause of action for public nuisance.

 

,

CIVIL SERVICE LAW SECTION 71 ALLOWS THE CITY TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB AND IS UNABLE TO RETURN TO WORK AFTER A YEAR; THE PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATING SUCH AN EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REQUIREMENT OF THE TAYLOR LAW (CIVIL SERVICE LAW SECTION 200 ET SEQ) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, reversing the Second Department, determined the city was required to engage in collective bargaining with the union to agree on the procedure for terminating an employee (here a firefighter) who was injured on the job and has not returned to work after a year:

Does the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law § 200 et seq.) require a municipality to engage in collective bargaining over the procedures for terminating municipal employees after they have been absent from work for more than a year due to an injury sustained in the line of duty? We hold that collective bargaining is required. * * *

“[W]here an employee has been separated from the service by reason of a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease as defined in the work[ers’] compensation law, [the employee] shall be entitled to a leave of absence for at least one year . . . ” (Civil Service Law § 71). * * *

Section 71 [grants] an employee with a work-related disability a leave of absence of up to one year and conditional reinstatement—even after that year has passed—while allowing the employer to fill the position if it chooses to terminate the employee.

… “[T]here is no ‘plain’ and ‘clear’ evidence that the Legislature intended” to foreclose from mandatory bargaining the procedures for terminating employees covered by the statute … . Both the language and legislative history of the section are silent on the issue of collective bargaining … . …

… [I]nasmuch as section 71 does not reference pretermination procedures at all, the statute plainly leaves room for the City and the Union to negotiate those procedures. Matter of City of Long Beach v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 05939, CtApp 10-25-22

Practice Point: The procedure for terminating (pursuant to Civil Service Law 71) a firefighter who was injured on the job and was not able to return to work after a year is subject to the collective bargaining requirement of the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law Section 200 et seq).

 

, ,

NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S (DOE’S) DENIALS OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE CITY’S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS (SHS’S) WERE NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the NYC Department of Education’s (DOE’s) denials of petitioners’ applications for admission to NYC’s Specialized High Schools (SHS’s) were not arbitrary and capricious. The opinion includes a detailed history of the SHS’s and detailed explanations of the criteria for admission of students deemed to be disadvantaged within meaning of the SHS’s Discovery program. The petitioners were not disadvantaged students. It is difficult to discern the precise nature of the petitioners’ claims from the opinion, but it appears petitioners were questioning the propriety of the implementation of the Discovery program for disadvantaged students. Matter of C.K. v Tahoe, 2022 NY Slip Op 05899, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: In this Article 78 proceeding the petitioners were students who were denied admission to NYC’s Specialized High Schools (SHS’s), The petitioners, who were not disadvantaged within the meaning the SHS’s Discovery program, apparently questioned the propriety of the implementation of the Discovery program for disadvantaged students. The Third Department held that the Department of Education’s denials of the petitioners’ applications for admission were not arbitrary and capricious.

 

, ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CURE THE OMISSION OF THE “PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE” REQUIREMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT ANY PROOF ON THE ISSUE; THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE PROOF SUBMITTED WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint to cure a pleading omission in this slip and fall case. The complaint did not allege the defendant city had written notice of the sidewalk condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall. The amendment sought to cure the omission. The Third Department explained that plaintiff did not need to present any proof at this pre-discovery stage. As long as the amendment is not palpably devoid of merit and does not prejudice the defendant  it should have been allowed. Therefore Supreme Court should not have considered plaintiff’s “written notice” proof and denied the amendment on the ground the proof did not demonstrate the defendant city had written notice of the condition:

As it is undisputed that plaintiff timely filed a notice of claim concerning her fall and the City and plaintiff thereafter participated in a 50-h hearing (see General Municipal Law§ 50-h), the City cannot allege prejudice or surprise. Moreover, as demonstrated by her proposed amended complaint, plaintiff is not changing her theory of causation, but merely curing her pleading omission. Although Supreme Court correctly determined that the proposed amended complaint cured the pleading omission, its attendant conclusion that “[plaintiff’s] claim is belied by the documentary evidence” and subsequent dismissal of the action on that basis was error.

At this stage of the litigation, where discovery has not yet even commenced, plaintiff has no burden to submit any proof. As such, the documents that she did submit are of no moment, and do not provide a basis upon which to dismiss her action … .. … [C]ontrary to the City’s assertion that the proposed amended complaint contains bare legal conclusions, plaintiff need not establish the merits of the proposed amendments … . Inasmuch as the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient or patently meritless, and the City cannot allege surprise or prejudice as the proposed amended complaint otherwise contains facts formerly pleaded and previously known to it, leave should have been granted to amend the complaint … . Mohammed v New York State Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05909, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend the slip and fall complaint by curing the omission of the “written notice” allegation should have been granted. Plaintiff did not need to present proof that the city actually had written notice. The only issues before the court were whether the amendment was palpably devoid of merit or the amendment would prejudice the city. Therefore Supreme Court erred by considering the “written notice” evidence presented by the plaintiff and denying the amendment because that evidence did not prove the city had written notice of the sidewalk condition.

 

, , ,

THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (HRL); THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED A CLAIM UNDER ONLY THE CITY HRL; THE CONTINUING VIOLATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO ISOLATED STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a hostile work environment claim under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL) and sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL: The isolated statement made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine:

Plaintiff’s allegations, that several times a week over a period of at least two years, plaintiff’s coworker spoke to him in a mock Chinese accent, told plaintiff to “open your eyes,” and tormented him about his mandatory drug testing in a sexually and racially charged manner, are sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim based on national origin discrimination under both the State and City HRLs … .

… [T]he allegations that his coworker regularly made statements about plaintiff’s penis size when plaintiff took bathroom breaks or reported for drug testing “fall within the broad range of conduct that falls between ‘severe and pervasive’ on the one hand and a ‘petty slight or trivial inconvenience’ on the other,” such that they are sufficient under the City HRL but not under the State HRL … . The continuing violation doctrine does not apply to the isolated statements made outside the limitations period because they do not form part of “a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the [limitations] period . . . , but rather discrete events, involving different actors, occurring months to years apart” … . Lum v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05594, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: The allegations that a coworker spoke using a mock Chinese accent and told plaintiff “open your eyes” stated hostile work environment claims under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL). The allegations that a coworker made comments about the size of plaintiff’s penis stated a sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL. Isolated statements made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine.

 

, , , ,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE WRONG VENUE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VENUE; IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE BASED UPON A STILLBIRTH, MOTHER’S AND FATHER’S PETITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND RESPONDENTS’ LACK OF PREJUDICE; MOTHER’S PETITION WAS GRANTED AND FATHER’S WAS DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined mother’s (but not father’s) petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted in this medical malpractice action stemming from a stillbirth. Supreme Court had dismissed the petition because it was brought in the wrong county. But, because the respondents did not object to the venue, the judge did not have the authority to dismiss the petition on that ground. Even though mother did not demonstrate the respondents had timely knowledge of the potential malpractice action, her petition should have been granted because she had an adequate excuse (mental health issues triggered by the stillbirth) and demonstrated respondents were not prejudiced by the delay. Father’s petition must be considered separately from mother’s and was denied (mother’s excuse did not apply to father):

… Supreme Court … erred when it raised the issue of improper venue sua sponte and dismissed this proceeding on that ground. The court should have instead decided the merits of the petition. * * *

Where leave is sought in one proceeding to pursue both a direct claim by an injured person and a derivative claim by his or her spouse, the spouse’s request for leave to serve a late notice of claim will not automatically be granted even if leave is granted to the injured person. Instead, the spouse’s request must be analyzed separately … . .* * *

While the actual knowledge factor [i.e., knowledge of the potential lawsuit] generally should be given “great weight” in the analysis … , the petitioners’ failure to satisfy that factor is not fatal to their petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim … . * * *

… [T]he petitioners met their initial minimal burden of providing a plausible argument supporting a finding of no substantial prejudice based on their contention that the respondents could defend themselves by reviewing the relevant medical records, interviewing witnesses, and consulting with experts. * * *

… [Mother] demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her delay due to her emotional and psychological injuries and the accompanying preoccupation with her well-being, as well as her attorney’s prompt investigation into the claim … . Matter of Balbuenas v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05526, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: The petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been dismissed based on improper venue because respondents didn’t object to the venue.

Practice Point: The fact that petitioners did not demonstrate the respondents in this medical malpractice case had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit was not fatal to the petition.

Practice Point: Here the potential medical malpractice action was based upon a stillbirth. Mother’s and father’s petitions must be considered separately.

Practice Point: Mother’s mental health issues stemming from the stillbirth constituted an adequate excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim.

Practice Point: Petitioners demonstrated the respondents were not prejudiced by the delay because of the medical records and the ability to interview witnesses.

Practice Point: Mother’s petition was granted, but father’s was denied because the only factor available to father was the absence of prejudice to the respondents.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT “DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK STATE’S” INSURERS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ACCIDENT; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim in this slip and fall case against the Dormitory Authority for the State of New York (DASNY) should have been granted because DASNY’s insurers had actual knowledge of the facts of the within 90 days of the accident:

… [T]he petitioner’s submissions demonstrated that DASNY’s insurers had actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the petitioner’s accident. The petitioner annexed to the petition a copy of a certificate of liability insurance stating that his employer was insured under a number of policies in connection with the construction project at the premises and identifying both DASNY and the State as “Additional Insureds” with respect to the project. The petitioner also annexed to the petition a letter dated July 8, 2019, approximately 70 days after the accident, in which the State informed the insurers named in the certificate of liability insurance that a notice of claim concerning the petitioner’s accident had been served on the State on or about June 14, 2019. The notice of claim that had been served on the State identifies the date, time, and location of the petitioner’s accident, describes the petitioner’s injuries, and specifies construction debris on the stairwell as the dangerous condition which caused the petitioner’s accident. Thus, DASNY’s insurers acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim within 90 days of his accident (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5] …). Matter of Joseph v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05318, Second Dept 9-28-22

Practice Point: A slip and fall lawsuit against the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DANYS) must be preceded by service of a notice of claim. Here the fact that the DANYS’s insurers had been given notice of the essential facts of the slip and fall within 90 days of the accident was a sufficient ground for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

 

, , , ,

A CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ORDERED PETITIONER-TENANT TO VACATE HER APARTMENT AFTER FINDING SOME WINDOWS DID NOT OPEN; PENDING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE CITY AMENDED THE CODE TO ALLOW A HEARING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE (RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER); THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS AN AGENT OF THE STATE AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND COUNSEL FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined petitioner-tenant was entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees in petitioner’s action against the city for ordering petitioner to vacate her apartment without first affording a hearing. The order to vacate was made after the code enforcement officer found windows in the apartment which could not be opened and an electrical problem. Before the appeal was heard, the city amended to code to provide an administrative hearing to those ordered to vacate their apartments. Petitioner was deemed to be a prevailing party and was therefore entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees:

Petitioner entered into a lease agreement for a second-floor apartment in the City of Schenectady … . … [P]etitioner contacted respondent City of Schenectady Code Enforcement Office and reported problems with the apartment including, among other things, that only three of the windows in the apartment could be opened. Following this complaint, the owner hired a repairperson to fix the windows … . … [A] code enforcement officer conducted an inspection of said premises. Upon finding that several of the second-floor windows still could not be opened and there was an electrical violation, the code enforcement officer issued an order to “immediately vacate” the second floor of the premises due to “sealed emergency rescue openings” and “unsafe conditions.” The order to vacate listed multiple violations of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State (19 NYCRR part 1226 [hereinafter PMCNYS]) and violations of the Code of the City of Schenectady. * * *

… [R]espondents argue that Supreme Court erred in awarding petitioner counsel fees because this matter is not a civil action against the state within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a) and, nonetheless, respondents were substantially justified in their acts. We disagree. “CPLR 8601 (a) mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … .

… [G]iven [the] statutory and regulatory framework, we are satisfied that respondents’ code enforcement officer acted as a state agent in issuing the order in the course of his enforcement of the PMCNYS…. .

… [P]etitioners were expressly entitled to a post-deprivation administrative hearing pursuant to Property Maintenance Code of New York State § 103.2.1. That provision contemplates a prompt forum for a dispossessed occupant to address his or her concerns with the involved municipal officials. … [R]espondents’ disregard of petitioner’s repeated requests for such a hearing effectively deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents’ failure to follow up on the code violations only compounded the problem. Matter of Brown v City of Schenectady, 2022 NY Slip Op 05245, Third Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: A tenant ordered to vacate an apartment by a code enforcement officer is entitled to a prompt hearing.

Practice Point: A municipal code enforcement officer is an agent of the state. Therefore, a suit against a municipal code enforcement officer is a suit against the state entitling the prevailing party to costs, disbursements and counsel fees.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST NYC, AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, ONCE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE FALL, THE PLAINTIFF MUST COME FOWARD WITH EVIDENCE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIES, EVEN IF, AS HERE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES NO EXCEPTION APPLIES; CASE LAW TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, clarified the burdens of proof at the summary judgment stage where the municipality demonstrates it did not have written notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. Once the city demonstrates a lack of written notice, the plaintiff must come forward with proof of an applicable exception to the written-notice requirement, even where, as here, the complaint alleged no exception applies. Precedent to the contrary should no longer be followed:

… [W]here, as here, “the City establishes that it lacked prior written notice under [Administrative Code § 7-201(c)(2)], the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule—that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality” …  Furthermore, we clarify that the burden-shifting standard … is applicable even where, as here, the complaint alleged that the defendants created the allegedly dangerous condition … . To the extent that this Court’s case law conflicts with the burden-shifting standard set forth in Groninger or Yarborough [Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d at 728; …Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck, 17 NY3d 125], it should no longer be followed … . * * *

Applying the correct standard here, the City sustained its initial burden on that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City affirmatively created the allegedly dangerous condition. The expert affidavit proffered by the plaintiff was not supported by the record and, thus, was speculative and conclusory, and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Under the circumstances, those branches of the City’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it should have been granted. Smith v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05226, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: The Second Department clarified the burdens of proof at the summary judgment stage where a plaintiff alleges injury by a defective condition on NYC property. If the city demonstrates it did not have written notice of the condition, to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must come forward with sufficient admissible evidence an exception to the written-notice requirement applies, even where, as in this case, the complaint alleges no exception is applicable. Case law in the Second Department to the contrary should no longer be followed.

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S HAND WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSED DOOR OF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the driver of the bus negligent in closing the door on plaintiff’s hand and in failing to open the door to release plaintiff’s hand:

A “defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” …, and “[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … . The evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether [the driver] negligently closed the doors as the plaintiff was attempting to board the bus, and negligently failed to reopen the doors and release the plaintiff’s hand after it became trapped. John v Dobson, 2022 NY Slip Op 05029, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s hand was caught in the closed door of the defendants’ bus. There were questions of fact whether the driver was negligent in closing the door on plaintiff’s hand and failing to open the door to release plaintiff’s hand.

 

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