You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

PETITIONER NYC FIREFIGHTER WAS DENIED ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT (ADR) BENEFITS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION IN THE MEDICAL BOARD’S FINDINGS; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION BASED ON A RECORD ADEQUATE FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, annulling the denial of accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits in this firefighter-disability case, determined that the Medical Board’s failure to explain the reasons for its conclusion there was no accident and the injuries were not debilitating required remittal to the Medical Board and a new determination by the Board of Trustees with a record adequate for review:

… [T]he Medical Board found petitioner to be disabled on account of the left shoulder injuries he sustained on March 22, 2018. However, citing “inconsistencies” and a “lack of witnessed accounts . . . that would suggest . . . an accident,” the Board denied petitioner an ADR benefit. When the insufficient explanation was raised before the Board of Trustees, they acknowledged that a witness statement was not necessary, and stated that they did not understand what the Medical Board was referring to with regard to inconsistencies in the manner of petitioner’s injuries. Nevertheless, when the Board of Trustees reconsidered the matter, it simply took a vote on petitioner’s application without any deliberation or indication as to why he had been denied an ADR benefit, issuing a conclusory denial without any explanation as to why they had adopted the Medical Board’s unsupported statements about alleged inconsistencies concerning the nature of petitioner’s injuries.

The Medical Board failed to provide any factual basis concerning the alleged inconsistencies and why it did not believe petitioner’s injuries to be accidental. Further, the determination of the Medical Board was devoid of any articulated basis for its conclusion that the limitations of petitioner’s cervical and lumbar spine were not a debilitating or incapacitating condition for performing the duties of a firefighter. The failure to set forth an adequate statement of the factual basis for the determination forecloses the possibility of fair judicial review … . Matter of Reynolds v New York City Fire Pension Fund, 2022 NY Slip Op 06330, First Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Here the injured NYC firefighter was denied accidental disability retirement (ADR) but the Medical Board did not give any reasons for its conclusion. The findings were annulled and the matter remitted for a new determination and the creation of an adequate record for review.

 

,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT AND THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED THE “CREATION OF THE DEFECT” EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY; THE DEFECT WAS THE RESULT OF DETERIORATION OF THE REPAIRED AREA OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town demonstrated it did not create the sidewalk condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. Rather the sidewalk repair was done by the town 10 years ago and the current deteriorated condition had developed over time:

The Court of Appeals “has recognized only two exceptions to the statutory rule requiring prior written notice, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence and where a ‘special use’ confers a special benefit upon the locality” Only the affirmative negligence exception is implicated in this case, and it “‘is limited to work [done] by [a municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition'” … . The defendant was not required to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to the affirmative negligence exception to the prior written notice rule in order to satisfy its prima facie burden … . Nevertheless, the defendant did eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to that exception. In particular, the defendant submitted an affidavit of its employee, John Carroll, who averred that the asphalt patch would have been “rolled smooth and level to remove any existing tripping hazard between the two existing concrete slabs,” but now, “the tar was eroded from the patch” and “[p]ortions of the asphalt patch . . . appear to be missing.” Based on Carroll’s “observation of the asphalt repair as it exist[ed] in 2019,” he believed that the repair was “[more than] 10 years old” and that its separation from the concrete slabs “would be caused by natural erosion, wear and tear over time, and/or in this case tree roots causing the concrete slabs to uplift, not by the method of its installation.” Parthesius v Town of Huntington, 2022 NY Slip Op 06254, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: A municipality will be responsible for a sidewalk slip and fall only when the town was notified of the defect in writing. There are two exceptions. Plaintiff argued the negligent-repair exception applied here. But that exception only applies to defects immediately resulting from a repair. Here the town demonstrated the repair was not properly 10 years ago and the defect developed over time.

 

,

PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner in this slip and fall case should not have been allowed file a late notice of claim. The fact that county personnel responded to the scene of her injuries did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit. The late notice was served 50 days after the expiration of the 90 time-limit and therefore did not provide notice within a reasonable time. The petitioner’s injuries did not constitute an adequate excuse. And the petitioner did not provide any evidence the county would not be prejudiced by the late notice:

… [T]he fact that members of the Nassau County Police Department and a County ambulance responded to the scene and tended to her injuries, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim against the County … . The petitioner failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that the County had knowledge of the circumstances of the accident from which it could “readily infer” that a “potentially actionable wrong had been committed” by it … .  Moreover, the late notice of claim, served upon the County without leave of court 50 days after the 90-day statutory period had expired, was served too late to provide the County with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the 90-day statutory period expired … .

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner’s conclusory assertion that her injuries prevented her from making timely service, without any supporting medical documentation or evidence, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … .

… [T]he petitioner failed to come forward with “some evidence or plausible argument” that the County will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the delay in commencing this proceeding and the lack of timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Lang v County of Nassau, 2022 NY Slip Op 06245, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: In this slip and fall case: (1) the fact that county personnel responded to the scene when petitioner slipped and fall did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit; (2) the late notice served 50 days after the 90-day time-limit did not provide notice within a reasonable time; (3) the petitioner’s injuries did not constitute an excuse; and (4) the petitioner did not present evidence the county would not be prejudiced by the delay.

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CONDITION WAS CREATED BY THE LESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE OF AN AGREEMENT CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined 7-Eleven. the lessee of the property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff allegedly fell, could not be held liable for the allegedly dangerous condition of the sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a) imposes a duty upon “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk . . . to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “[A] lessee of property which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting lessee either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon the lessee for injuries caused by a violation of that duty” … . Additionally, “[a]s a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party” … . Only “where a lease agreement is so comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance as to entirely displace the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk, [may] the tenant . . . be liable to a third party” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that 7-Eleven had any duty to maintain the sidewalk abutting the property it leased. Brady v 2247 Utica Ave. Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06100, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Under the NYC Administrative Code, the lessee of property abutting a sidewalk is not liable for a slip and fall caused by the condition of the sidewalk if the lessee did not create the condition and did not agree to maintain the sidewalk.

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF’S 50-H EXAMINATION TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE “FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT” DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition directly contradicted his testimony at the General Municipal Law 50-h examination:

“[A] defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing, inter alia, that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition” … . Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not engage in any snow removal activity within the subject triangular area, and therefore was not responsible for creating the icy condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred that, in the afternoon of the day before his accident, he “observed City personnel shoveling the snow from the [subject triangular area] and making piles of snow upon the perimeters.” Yet, at his examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff had been asked “At any point between the snowfall and the morning before the accident happened, had you seen anyone clearing snow from that [triangular area],” and he had responded “No, no.” Since the assertion made for the first time in the plaintiff’s affidavit directly contradicted the testimony he had given at his General Municipal Law § 50-h examination, and he has not provided a plausible explanation for the inconsistency between the two statements, the assertion made in his affidavit must be viewed as presenting a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier testimony, and it is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Nass v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06132, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s 50-h examination testimony directly contradicted his affidavit opposing defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The “feigned issue of fact” did not raise a question of fact.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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