You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

WILLIAMS, THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SLOWING DOWN FOR A WORK CREW AHEAD; THE WILLIAMS CAR WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A POLICE CAR PURSUING ANOTHER VEHICLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. A police officer pursuing another vehicle rear-ended the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger as the driver (Williams) was slowing down for a work crew:

Williams’s evidence in support of his motion demonstrated prima facie that he was operating his vehicle in a lawful, reasonable manner given the circumstances on the expressway at the time, and that he was not otherwise culpable in causing the police car to strike the rear of his vehicle. The burden having shifted, plaintiff and the City defendants each failed to offer evidence as would raise a factual issue regarding Williams’s comparable negligence in the cause of the accident … . The City defendants failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for rear-ending Williams’s vehicle, and the claim that the rear-ended vehicle stopped short, standing alone, is insufficient as a nonnegligent explanation for an accident … . Regardless of whether the actions of the police in this incident are to be considered under the reckless standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, the nonliability of Williams, given the unrefuted evidence of his nonculpable role in this accident, remains unchanged … . Grant v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 01121, First Dept 2-22-22

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER, COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM HER EMPLOYMENT FOR OTHER REASONS, THE FACT THAT SHE TESTIFIED IN FAMILY COURT ABOUT THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF A JUVENILE WHICH WAS NOT AS SEVERE AS THE PLACEMENT ADVOCATED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF LOYALTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in this Article 78 action, affirmed the county’s decision to terminate the employment of petitioner, who was Commissioner of Social Services for the county. The allegations of misconduct are too detailed to be summarized here. But the Third Department noted that the fact that the petitioner disagreed with the county attorney and the probation department about the appropriate placement of a juvenile, and so testified in Family Court, was not actionable misconduct:

… [P]etitioner, the Director of Probation and the County Attorney each had defined statutory roles in the Family Court proceeding … . That petitioner opted to promote a less stringent measure than her counterparts does not, as charged by respondents, constitute a breach of loyalty owed to either the County Attorney or the Director of Probation, or vice versa. … [T]o the extent that the Board relied, at all, on the Hearing Officer’s findings with respect to [the relevant] charge … , its determination is not supported by substantial evidence. It therefore follows that so much of the Board’s determination as sustained said specifications are annulled. Matter of Scuderi-Hunter v County of Del., 2022 NY Slip Op 01078, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, ,

PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMONSTRATED HE HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO FORMULATE A COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HIS REQUEST FOR PRE-JOINDER DISCOVERY AND PRESERVATION OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined pre-joinder discovery and preservation of the accident site was not necessary in this slip and fall case:

The petitioner alleges … he slipped and fell due to an accumulation of water leaking from the ceiling onto the landing at the top of an escalator in a subway station. The petitioner commenced this proceeding against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) seeking to direct the Transit Authority to preserve and produce any surveillance videos or records prepared in the regular course of business concerning the accident, or to provide an affidavit explaining the absence of any such videos or records. The petitioner also moved pursuant to CPLR 3102(c), in effect, to compel the Transit Authority to permit an inspection of the location of the accident upon certain conditions and to refrain from performing alterations or modifications to the location pending that inspection. …

CPLR 3102(c) provides, as relevant, that “[b]efore an action is commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing an action, to preserve information or to aid in arbitration, may be obtained, but only by court order.” Here, the petitioner’s notice of claim demonstrates that the petitioner possessed sufficient information to enable him to formulate his complaint and commence an action … . Therefore, under the circumstances, the only purpose of the pre-action discovery sought by the petitioner would be to “explore alternative theories of liability, which is not a proper basis for invoking CPLR 3102(c)” … . Moreover, considering, inter alia, the evidence already in the petitioner’s possession, the order directing the Transit Authority to preserve the condition of the site of the accident until completion of an inspection was unduly burdensome …”. Matter of Neham v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

, ,

THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined no part of plaintiff’s automobile accident settlement was available to satisfy a medical lien held by the NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA) because the settlement did not include medical expenses:

HRA asserted a lien on the proceeds of plaintiff’s settlement of an action arising out of an automobile accident in an amount representing the total amount of the medical bills it paid in connection with the treatment of the injuries plaintiff sustained in the accident (see Social Services Law § 104-b). However, plaintiff was barred from suing for medical expenses, because her basic economic losses were less than $50,000 (see Insurance Law § 5102[a]). Moreover, in light of the particular record before us, no portion of the proceeds of the settlement represents medical expenses, and HRA may not recover any portion of the proceeds for its medical costs … . Marmol v Mutino, 2022 NY Slip Op 00970, First Dept 2-15-22

​

, , ,

A STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHENTICATING PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER’S CAR RUNNING A RED LIGHT NEED NOT BE NOTARIZED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city (NYC) was not required to submit a notarized statement from the Department of Transportation authenticating photographs of petitioner’s car running a red light:

For over half a century, the legislature has consistently provided for prima facie liability for minor traffic offenses to be established by a simple, nonnotarized affirmation under penalty of perjury, using the same “sworn to or affirmed” language. Legislative history establishes the plain intent and meaning of the “sworn to or affirmed” language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a(d): that the reviewing technician merely affirm, under penalty of perjury, the veracity of his statement. No notarization is necessary.

In the instant administrative proceeding, the notice of liability was supported by the requisite affirmation. The video images authenticated by the technician show petitioner’s car running a red light. This constitutes, as per the statute, “prima facie evidence” of the traffic violation (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1111-a[d]). Matter of Monroe St. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00972, First Dept 2-15-22

 

, , ,

THE NYC LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REMITTED THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION CONCERNING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE TENANTS PURPORTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYC Loft Board properly remitted the matter for further proceedings in this proceeding involving a settlement agreement in which the tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage:

… [T]he matter [is] remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

In accordance with its regulations (see 29 RCNY § 1-06 [j] [5]), the Loft Board reviewed and rejected the parties’ proposed settlement agreement as perpetuating an illegal living arrangement. The rationality of that determination is not before us … . Under these limited circumstances, it was not irrational for the Board to remand for further proceedings, thereby declining to give effect to a provision of the settlement agreement in which tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 00957, Ct App 2-15-22

 

,

THE TOWN LAW STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “FIREARMS” DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “BOWS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the Town Law does not authorize the Town of Smithtown to regulate the discharge of “bows” pursuant to its authority to regulate “firearms:”

Town Law § 130 (27) specifically authorizes certain towns to prohibit the discharge of “firearms” through ordinances that may be more restrictive than other laws where such discharge may be hazardous to the general public, and requires that notice be provided to the Department of Environmental Conservation of any ordinance “changing the five hundred foot [setback] rule” (Town Law § 130 [27]; see Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0931 [4] [a] [2]). While the term “firearm” is undefined in the Town Law, construing it in accordance with its “usual and commonly understood meaning” … , the term “firearm” does not encompass a “bow” … and we are unpersuaded that the Legislature intended otherwise when it used the term in the Town Law. Accordingly, Town Law § 130 (27) does not authorize Smithtown to regulate the discharge of bows. Hunters for Deer, Inc. v Town of Smithtown, 2022 NY Slip Op 00907, CtApp 2-10-22

 

, , ,

ALLOWING DRIVING AND PARKING ON A LONG ISLAND BEACH MAY CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for private and public nuisance against the town and village, based upon the code provisions and rules allowing vehicles to drive and park on the beach, should not have been dismissed:

… [P]hotographs of the subject beach area as well as the affidavits of [plaintiff] and her family describing the conditions on the beach raised triable issues of fact as to whether driving and parking in the subject beach area, in the manner and at the intensity allegedly occurring at the time of this action, was of an unreasonable character. …

“A public nuisance exists for conduct that amounts to a substantial interference with the exercise of a common right of the public, thereby offending public morals, interfering with the use by the public of a public place or endangering or injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons” … . Here, contrary to the court’s conclusion, triable issues of fact existed as to whether summer daytime beach driving and parking in the subject beach area, in the manner and at the intensity allegedly occurring at the time of this action, endangered the health and safety of members of the public who use that portion of the beach as well as the beach itself, including the lands seaward of the high-water line, which are held in trust for the public. Thomas v Trustees of the Freeholders & Commonalty of the Town of Southampton, 2022 NY Slip Op 00894, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

PETITIONER SOUGHT RECORDS FROM THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION (TLC) TO DETERMINE HOW THE COMMISSION WAS HANDLING LICENSE APPLICANTS WITH CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS; THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s request for records from the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), including fitness interview decisions (FID”s) should not have been denied. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court for an in camera review of the records:

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) (18 USC § 2721 et seq.) does not impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all motor vehicle records. Instead, the law restricts disclosure of “personal information,” which includes personal identifiers of the type that petitioner agrees should be redacted. Moreover, even as to such personal information, the DPPA still expressly provides for disclosure in various circumstances, such as for research purposes, where the personal information will not be further disclosed … . Motor vehicle records under the DPPA are thus not the kind of records as to which production is absolutely prohibited, as long as they are redacted … .

The record is not clear as to what extent it is possible to anonymize production of the TLC fitness interview decisions (FIDs), which petitioner seeks in order to assess whether the TLC has been applying fair standards in its decision making on licensing determinations with respect to people with one or more criminal convictions … . Matter of Brooklyn Legal Servs. v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 2022 NY Slip Op 00809, First Dept 2-8-22

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were triable issues of fact in this employment discrimination case:

Plaintiff, an African American female, raises triable issues of fact whether her October 2017 termination (adverse employment action) was in retaliation for her verbal complaints (protected activity) concerning racist comments defendant Annie Liu allegedly uttered at work … . A question of fact exists as to whether plaintiff complained in July or August 2017. If plaintiff’s testimony is credited, the time frame between the discriminatory comments, plaintiff’s complaints, and her firing is evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination two months later … . Contrary to defendants’ argument, it is unclear from the record whether an intervening event occurred to dispel an inference of a causal relationship. Moreover, issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff’s employment was pretextual … . Cancel v Global Fertility & Genetics, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00811, First Dept 2-8-22

 

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