You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE CLASS WAS TOO SMALL; PLAINTIFF-TENANTS ALLEGED THE LANDLORD DEREGULATED APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, tenants of a 49-unit apartment building, should have been certified as a class. The complaint alleged the landlord deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Supreme Court erred in denying class certification on the ground that plaintiffs failed to show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members . . . is impracticable” (CPLR 901[a][1]). Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P. (24 NY3d 382, 383 [2014]) and subsequent cases, such as Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC (34 NY3d 116 [2019]), make it clear that qualified plaintiffs may “utilize the class action mechanism to recover compensatory rent overcharges against landlords who decontrolled apartments in contravention of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a) while accepting tax benefits under New York City’s J-51 tax abatement program.” The legislature contemplated classes involving as few as 18 members … . Here, as in Borden, plaintiffs allege defendant deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits. Construing the class certification statute liberally … given that the asserted class consists of former and current tenants who lived in the 16 units improperly treated as deregulated after November 15, 2013, while defendant was receiving J-51 tax benefits, it is reasonable to infer that some units in this 49-unit apartment building would have had more than one tenant and several tenants would have moved away, making joinder of all members impracticable … . The identity of class members, i.e., which units were treated as deregulated and who leased them during the relevant time period, is within defendant’s knowledge. Hoffman v Fort 709 Assoc., L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02510, First Dept 4-19-22

​Practice Point: Here class certification should not have been denied on the ground the class was too small. The plaintiffs are tenants alleging the landlord improperly deregulated apartments while receiving tax benefits. Classes as small as 18 members were contemplated by the legislature.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an inmate at the Orange County Correctional Facility (OCCF), stated a cause of action against the county, as well as the county sheriff. Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to contaminated shower water at the jail. The cause of action against the county was not based on a vicarious liability theory (the county is not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the sheriff’s office). Rather plaintiff stated a cause of action alleging the county was negligent in failing to ensure the safety of the water at the jail. That cause of action is distinct from the sheriff’s duty to keep inmates safe. The issue was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

… [T]he complaint did not solely seek to hold the County vicariously liable for the actions and omissions of the sheriff and his deputies. The complaint alleged that the County had a duty to maintain the OCCF, including its water supply, in a safe and proper manner, and that the County’s breach of that duty caused the plaintiff to sustain personal injuries. The County’s duty to provide and maintain the jail building is distinguishable from the sheriff’s duty to receive and safely keep inmates in the jail over which the sheriff has custody … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff’s argument that the County is liable for its own negligence, as opposed to being vicariously liable for the negligence of the sheriff or his deputies, is not improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Aviles v County of Orange, 2022 NY Slip Op 02384, Second Dept 4-13-22​

Practice Point: The county is not liable for the acts or omissions of the county sheriff under a vicarious liability theory. However, here the allegation that the shower water at the jail was contaminated stated a cause of action against the county for its own negligence. Therefore the action against the county should not have been dismissed.

 

,

A PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTER INJURED WHILE TRAINING TO COMPLETE A FIRE BASIC TRAINING PROGRAM WAS INJURED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, ENTITLING HIM TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A DISBILITY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined Supreme Court properly found petitioner, a probationary firefighter, was entitled to disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-a. The fact that petitioner was injured while training for a test required for the completion of a fire basic training program did not mean petitioner was not injured in the performance of his duties, as argued by the city:

Although petitioner’s injury did not occur in the course of his actual performance of the required test, successful completion of the candidate physical ability test was a necessary requirement of petitioner’s position, and petitioner was engaged in the expected and foreseeable task of practicing for that test during a mandatory training program that was part of his duties as a probationary firefighter … . The record further reflects that petitioner was attending the Fire Academy at the direction of the City, that the training was paid for by the City and that petitioner was receiving full pay for his attendance and participation in the program. Mindful that, as a remedial statute, General Municipal Law § 207-a “should be liberally construed in favor of the injured employees the statute was designed to protect” … , we find that the requisite causal relationship exists between petitioner’s job duties and his injury … . Matter of Smith v City of Norwich, 2022 NY Slip Op 02324, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: A probationary firefighter injured while training to complete a fire basic training program was injured in the “performance of his duties” and is therefore entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a disability benefits.

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF THE PETITIONERS’ CHILD’S INJURY AT THE TIME IT OCCURRED DOES NOT MEAN THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioners’ application to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc should not have been granted. Apparently petitioners’ child tripped and fell on a stairwell at at her school. The fact that the school was aware of the child’s injury at the time does not mean the school was aware of a potential lawsuit. The year-long delay was not adequately explained; infancy is not enough. And the petitioners did not show the school was not prejudiced by the delay:

The appellant’s “knowledge of the accident and the injury, without more, does not constitute actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, at least where the incident and the injury do not necessarily occur only as the result of fault for which it may be liable” … . The petitioner mother stated in an affidavit submitted in support of the application that the school nurse called her on the day of the accident, advising her that her daughter fell on the stairs and injured her right foot. This statement, however, did not provide the appellant with actual knowledge of the facts underlying the petitioners’ claim of negligent supervision … .. Similarly, although the petitioner mother stated in her affidavit that she spoke to an employee of the appellant about the accident approximately two months after it occurred, the mother’s affidavit indicates that the employee had no information or details to share. Moreover, letters sent by the petitioners’ attorneys to the appellant did not advise it of the essential facts underlying the negligent supervision claim. J. G. v Academy Charter Elementary Sch., 2022 NY Slip Op 02251, Second Dept 4-6-22

​Practice Point: An application to serve a late notice of claim against a school may be granted if the school had timely knowledge of the claim. But that doesn’t mean timely knowledge of the injury or the incident. It means timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to the records of the driver’s guilty plea to an unclassified misdemeanor (under the NYC Administrative Code), which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right of way: The unclassified misdemeanor is not covered by the sealing statute, Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.55 which seals records of Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions:

… [Defendant driver] was arrested, charged, and subsequently pled guilty to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-190(b), an unclassified misdemeanor, and to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), a traffic violation, for failing to yield to plaintiff’s decedent and causing him injury. Plaintiff … now seeks the records pertaining to [the driver’s] unclassified misdemeanor. The City defendants argue that these records are not discoverable because they overlap with [the driver’s] traffic infraction records, which are sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55.

Under CPL 160.55, all records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution of an individual convicted of a traffic infraction or violation, following a criminal action or proceeding, shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency … . Plaintiff is entitled to [the driver’s] records pertaining to his unclassified misdemeanor, as the records are not subject to CPL 160.55, and it does not appear that they were sealed … . To the extent these records contain references or information related solely to [the driver’s] sealed traffic violation case, the City must redact or remove it from its production. Lu-Wong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02226, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: Although the records of traffic infractions are sealed under CPL 160.55, the records of a violation of the NYC Administrative Code, which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right-of-way, are not subject to that sealing statute. Therefore the plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to those records.

 

, , ,

THE CITY FIREFIGHTERS WHO, AS ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES, WERE REQUIRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER TO WORK DURING THE PANDEMIC, SOUGHT TIME-OFF OR MONETARY COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO THE TIME-OFF AFFORDED THE NONESSENTIAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE SENT HOME DURING THE PANDEMIC PURSUANT TO THE SAME THE EXECUTIVE ORDER; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED ARBITRATION OF THE ISSUE WAS PRECLUDED BY PUBLIC POLICY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city firefighters’ claim to entitlement to time off from work or monetary compensation equivalent to the time-off afforded the civilian employees ordered to stay home (due to COVID) was prohibited by public policy. The firefighters were deemed essential employees and were required to report to work by Executive Order. The “nonessential” civilian employees were ordered to stay home by the same Executive Order:

… [W]e cannot agree that petitioner breached the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] by responsibly implementing the Governor’s directives. To hold otherwise would create an untenable result — i.e., it would sanction a finding that petitioner breached the CBA based upon its required compliance with state public policy. Based on the very nature of the pandemic, requiring extreme public health measures as implemented through the executive orders, we conclude that arbitration of the resulting impact on respondent’s members is precluded as a matter of public policy. Matter of City of Troy (Troy Uniformed Firefighters Assn., Local 86 IAFF, AFL-CIO), 2022 NY Slip Op 02174, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here is a rare example of the preclusion of the arbitration of an employment issue by public policy. The firefighters were ordered to work during COVID as essential employees. The nonessential civilian employees were ordered to stay home. Public policy prohibited arbitration of the question whether the firefighters were entitled to equivalent time-off or monetary compensation.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY PROVED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, IT DID NOT PROVE THAT PILING SNOW ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK DID NOT CREATE THE ICY CONDITION; THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality did not demonstrate it did not create the icy condition on the sidewalk where plaintiff slipped and fell by piling snow along the sidewalk which melted and froze:

“While the mere failure to remove all snow or ice from a sidewalk is an act of omission, rather than an affirmative act of negligence, a municipality’s act in piling snow as part of its snow removal efforts, which snow pile then melts and refreezes to create a dangerous icy condition, constitutes an affirmative act excepting the dangerous condition from the prior written notice requirement” … . Pirrone v Metro N. Commuter R.R., 2022 NY Slip Op 02144, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here the municipality did not prove it did not create the icy-sidewalk condition by piling snow removed from the sidewalk along the edge of the sidewalk where it melted and froze. Therefore, even though the municipality did not have written notice of the icy condition, there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the condition. The municipality’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

CIVIL SERVICE LAW 75-B SERVES THE SAME PURPOSE AS THE EMPLOYMENT ANTI-RETALIATION STATUTES IN THE NEW YORK STATE AND NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD RESIGNED AT TIME OF THE SUIT, HIS RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s retaliation claim pursuant to Civil Service Law 75-b should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, an employee of the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB), alleged he was denied a job because of a poor reference allegedly made in retaliation for his reporting a conflict of interest to the City’s Department of Investigation. At the time plaintiff brought this action he had retired, but his retirement did not preclude his Civil Service Law cause of action:

… [W]e reject the motion’s court determination that Civil Service Law § 75-b does not apply to actions taken by a public employer after an employee has resigned. Civil Service Law § 75-b prohibits a public employer from dismissing or taking any “other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action against a public employee regarding the employee’s employment” because the employee discloses information of either (1) a violation of rule or law, which presents a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety, or (2) improper governmental action … . Section 75-b serves a purpose similar to that of other anti-retaliation statutes, including the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107), in that they “‘remediat[e] adverse employment actions which, if allowed, would undermine important public policy'” … . Thus, an analogous reading of the term “employee” under Civil Service Law § 75-b to include former employees alleging post-employment retaliation for reports made in the course of their prior employment, is appropriate … . Moreover, blacklisting and providing negative references to an individual’s prospective employers in retaliation for prior reports of government misconduct may constitute adverse personnel action under the statute, in the same way that the State Human Rights Law has been found to cover such acts … . DaCosta v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 2022 NY Slip Op 01963, First Dept 3-22-22

Practice Point: Civil Service Law 75-b serves the same purpose as the employment anti-retaliation statutes in the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law. The NYC employee’s Civil Service Law 75-b cause of action, alleging he was given a poor reference in retaliation for reporting a conflict of interest, should not have been dismissed, even though he had resigned at the time the suit was filed.

 

,

​ THE TARGETS OF A NO-KNOCK WARRANT ARE OWED A “SPECIAL DUTY” SUCH THAT A MUNICIPALITY MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS EXECUTING THE WARRANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Singas, over a two-judge dissent, determined the police owe a “special duty” to those targeted by a no-knock warrant such that liability may be imposed on a municipality for the negligence of the police during execution of the warrant.. Here plaintiff alleged he was shot by a police officer who entered the apartment where he was sleeping.. The certified question from the Second Circuit asked if the “special duty” requirement applies in this situation, or whether it is triggered only when the municipality fails to protect the plaintiff from injury by a third party who is not a municipal employee. The opinion lays out the confusing interplay between the “special duty” requirement and the “governmental-function immunity” affirmative defense, which can defeat a plaintiff’s action even if a “special duty” is deemed to exist. The dissent argued the “special duty” requirement itself is invalid and the “ordinary negligence” standard should apply to governmental actors:

Our precedent dictates that a plaintiff must establish a special duty when suing a municipality in negligence. However, because the underlying premise of the certified question appears to be that a special duty could not be established in a scenario like the one presented, we take this opportunity to clarify that this is not the case: a special duty may be established where the police plan and execute a no-knock search warrant on a targeted residence. Although we have not yet had an occasion to address application of the special duty rule to the execution of no-knock search warrants, that situation fits within the existing parameters of our special duty precedent.

From the dissent:

The majority’s principal error, which infects its entire analysis, is embodied in the following statement: “Consistent with our precedent and the purpose of the special duty rule, we reiterate that plaintiffs must establish that a municipality owed them a special duty when they assert a negligence claim based on actions taken by a municipality acting in a governmental capacity” … . That statement: (1) is not consistent with our precedent, in which we have repeatedly evaluated negligence claims against governmental actors by asking whether an ordinary duty exists; and (2) improperly incorporates the governmental/proprietary distinction from immunity law into negligence law … . Ferreira v City of Binghamton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01953, CtApp 3-22-22

Practice Point: This opinion lays out in detail the confusing interplay between the “special duty” requirement for a negligence suit against a municipality and the “governmental-function immunity” affirmative defense which can defeat a negligence suit even where a special duty is deemed to exist. Here the Court of Appeals determined those targeted by a no-knock warrant are owed a special duty such that a party injured in the warrant-execution may sue the municipality for the negligence of a police officer. The dissent argued the “special duty” requirement is itself invalid and an ordinary negligence standard should apply.

 

, , ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE NORMAL JERKS AND JOLTS OF BUS TRAVEL AND NOT BY ANY NEGLIGENCE ON DEFENDANTS’ PART; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the defense verdict in this bus-passenger-injury case should not have been granted. The jury could have found plaintiff was injured by the normal “jerks and jolts” of bus travel without any negligence on defendants’ part:

… [G]iving due deference to the jury’s credibility findings … , it could have determined, based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence introduced at trial, including the testimony of the bus driver and a surveillance video, that the movement of the bus as it drove over the speed bump was one of the sort of “jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” and not attributable to the negligence of the defendant … . Jones v Westchester County, 2022 NY Slip Op 01774, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the testimony of the bus driver and the surveillance video allowed the jury to determine plaintiff bus-passenger’s injuries were caused by normal movements of the bus and not by the driver’s negligence. Therefore the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict should not have been granted.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy