You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification in this rent overcharge action should not have been denied. The tenants alleged the landlord unlawfully deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Class certification was improperly denied. The determination of whether plaintiffs have a cause that may be asserted as a class action turns on the application of CPLR 901. That section provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all” where five factors — sometimes characterized “as numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901(a) and thus establishing entitlement to certification … .

Here, plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902. Contrary to the motion court’s determination, plaintiffs established numerosity and typicality in their initial motion for class certification. The allegations in the amended complaint taken with the DOF tax bills showed that by June 2017, only 8 of 100 apartments were registered as rent-stabilized. … [T]his Court [has] held that similar bills were sufficient to establish numerosity, i.e., the number of deregulated units. As to typicality, the predominant legal question involves one that applies to the entire class—whether defendant unlawfully deregulated rent-stabilized apartments while receiving J-51 real estate tax abatement benefits. Cupka v Remik Holdings LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00812, First Dept 2-8-22

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE CITY BUILDING CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DISABLED-ACCESS TO THE THIRD FLOOR OF DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE FACT THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MAY REQUIRE SUCH ACCESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, a disabled wheelchair user, had standing to bring a discrimination action against defendant restaurant alleging the third floor of the restaurant was not accessible. The fact that the NYC Building Code did not require disabled-access to the third floor based on the square-footage did not conflict with the Human Rights Law which may require access:

The Building Code and disability discrimination laws serve different purposes and can easily be enforced and harmonized. The Building Code serves foremost to ensure safety in construction and maintenance of structures. The accessibility provision at issue simply states that no disabled access is required for building areas which measure less than 2,500 square feet. The provision does not prohibit building owners from providing such access — it simply provides that, for purposes of the Building Code, no such access is required.

The disability discrimination laws are designed, as pertinent here, to ensure that disabled persons have reasonable access to public accommodations. While the Building Code might not require disabled access under the circumstances present here, this does not mean that more may not be required under the State and City Human Rights Laws’ (HRLs) disability discrimination provisions. In this, there is no conflict. To the extent there is any tension between the Building Code’s provisions and the HRLs, such tension may be remedied by the rule of reasonableness which is an integral component of the HRLs’ requirement that disabled persons be reasonably accommodated (see Executive Law § 296[c][i]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[15][b]). Jones v McDonald’s Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00814, First Dept 2-8-22

 

,

CLAIMANTS’ APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimants’ application to file a late notice of claim against the county in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Claimants alleged ice and snow had been allowed to accumulate on the road causing the driver to lose control and strike a tree. Claimants’ eight-year-old son was injured. The Fourth Department, in a comprehensive discussion, went through each “late-notice-of-claim” factor and found only one (county not prejudiced by the delay) favored the claimants:

… [O]f all the relevant circumstances evaluated—infancy, reasonable excuse, actual knowledge, and substantial prejudice—only one, lack of substantial prejudice, favored granting claimants’ application. Despite the well-settled principle that “actual knowledge of the claim is the factor that is accorded ‘great weight’ in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim” … and instead “weigh[ed] heavily” the lack of substantial prejudice, even though claimants’ showing in that regard, while adequate, was not particularly strong. Under these circumstances—which include the nearly 22-month period between the accident and claimants’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the improper weighing of the substantial prejudice factor at the expense of the actual knowledge factor, and claimants’ failure to demonstrate a nexus between the son’s infancy and the delay or to otherwise proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay—we conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting that part of the application seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim on the County … . Matter of Antoinette C. v County of Erie, 2022 NY Slip Op 00776, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, , ,

THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT CONSULTED WITH ITS ATTORNEY IN A CLOSED SESSION BEFORE DECIDING NOT TO RENEW PLAINTIFF FOOTBALL COACH’S EMPLOYMENT; THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW FOR LEGAL ADVICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff high school football coach was not entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action alleging the school board violated the Open Meetings Law by deciding not to renew plaintiff’s employment after a closed meeting. The Open Meetings Law did not apply to the board’s closed-door consultation with its attorney:

It is well settled that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a] … ). While an executive session may be called to discuss, inter alia, “matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person” (§ 105 [1] [f]), the public body may do so only upon a majority vote of its membership and after “identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” (§ 105 [1]). However, section 108 (3) clarifies that “[n]othing contained in [the Open Meetings Law] shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to . . . any matter made confidential by federal or state law.” Because “communications made pursuant to an attorney-client relationship are considered confidential under the [CPLR] . . . , communications between a . . . board . . . and its counsel, in which counsel advises the board of the legal issues involved in [a] determination . . . , are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law” … .

There is no dispute that, during the closed session … , the Board and the District superintendent met with the District’s counsel seeking legal advice “regarding the [p]laintiff’s legal employment status, employment rights, [and] the process for appointing school employees.” We thus agree with defendants that the attorney-client exemption applies and that the court erred in determining that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Law … . Sindoni v Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 00772, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STEPS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ALTHOUGH ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WERE SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER (POTENTIALLY RENDERING THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case should have been allowed to present evidence of defendant synagogue’s special use of steps which were part of the public right-of-way but which lead to the synagogue entrance. Plaintiff slipped on ice on the “public right-of-way” portion of the steps and broke her ankle:

… [D]efendant proffered evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment that plaintiff’s fall occurred on public property, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact as to defendant’s liability as an abutter … . With respect to its special use theory of recovery, plaintiff points to the deposition testimony of defendant’s secretary and bookkeeper, who testified that she was unaware of who initially built the subject set of steps, or when, but that defendant rebuilt them prior to plaintiff’s fall. Photographs submitted by both parties make clear that the subject steps are not only directly in line with the synagogue’s main entrance, but match that entrance’s width with near exactitude, the entrance notably being wide enough to encompass two sets of double doors. There is proof that congregants attending Sabbath services and holiday services would access the synagogue via this entrance only. In addition, photographic evidence reveals that the portion of the raised sidewalk between the two sets of steps is constructed of more decorative pavers or cobblestones, laid by defendant, setting that area apart from the otherwise concrete sidewalk, arguably improving the overall appearance of the main entrance and visually linking the two sets of steps up to the synagogue.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every available inference, as we must, the foregoing was adequate to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the subject steps were constructed or altered for defendant’s benefit. Podhurst v Village of Monticello, 2022 NY Slip Op 00707, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

, ,

THE TOWN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BRING DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREE BENEFITS SET FORTH IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller which is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. determined plaintiff police officer was properly subjected to disciplinary charges brought by the town and was not entitled to all the retiree benefits set forth in the collective bargaining agreement:

We are called upon in this case to navigate the interplay between various forms of equitable relief grounded in common law doctrine, principles of modern practice under CPLR article 78 and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and certain state-level policies regarding the right to collective bargaining and the authority of public officials over law enforcement. These issues have been raised as a result of the plaintiff’s complaint, the central aim of which is to prevent the plaintiff’s employer from holding him accountable for the serious disciplinary infractions that he allegedly committed in the course of his official duties as a police officer.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the equitable powers and legal doctrines that he seeks to invoke in this litigation do not shield him from the consequences of his actions. Murray v Town of N. Castle, 2022 NY Slip Op 00675, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE ROAD WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL USE OF THE ROAD; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant demonstrated it did not create a dangerous condition in the street by a special use. Plaintiff alleged defendant created the dangerous condition by storing heavy materials in the street. Plaintiff alleged a steel beam fell on his foot from a forklift when the forklift struck a defect in the road (Simmons Avenue):

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or street is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner or lessee of abutting property, unless the landowner or lessee has either affirmatively created the dangerous condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur through a special use, or violated a statute or ordinance expressly imposing liability on the landowner or lessee for a failure to maintain the abutting street” … . Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing, as relevant here, that “[it] neither owned nor made special use of [Simmons Avenue], and that [it] had no connection to the condition” that caused the accident … .

From the dissent:

In our view, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not make special use of Simmons Avenue or affirmatively create the defective condition on Simmons Avenue that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries. Beck v City of Niagara Falls, 2022 NY Slip Op 00563, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

THE TOWN CODE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A PROPERTY INSPECTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A RENTAL PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BECAUSE THE PROVISION ALLOWS THE LANDLORD TO HAVE THE INSPECTION DONE BY A STATE-LICENSED ENGINEER, AS OPPOSED TO THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town code provision which required a property inspection before issuance of a rental permit is not unconstitutional. Although the provision would be unconstitutional if an inspection by the town building inspector was required (a mandatory warrantless search), the provision also allows the landlord to have the property inspected by a state-licensed engineer:

It is well-settled that “the imposition of a penalty upon a landlord for renting his [or her] premises without first consenting to a warrantless search violates the property owner’s Fourth Amendment rights” … . Here, however, the Town’s rental permit law does not “expressly require . . . an inspection before the issuance or renewal of a permit” … , since a property owner who is applying for a rental permit has the option of obtaining a certification from a state-licensed professional engineer in lieu of submitting to an inspection by a Town building inspector … . Accordingly, the provisions did not violate constitutional provisions against unreasonable searches and seizures … . Infinite Green, Inc. v Town of Babylon, 2022 NY Slip Op 00407, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , , ,

EVEN THOUGH PARTY DEPOSITIONS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION PAPERS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT BECAUSE NO EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT WAS OFFERED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S BUS CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE AND STRUCK HIS TAXI CAB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined; (1) the motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was not premature; and (2) plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability. Plaintiff alleged his taxi cab was struck by defendant’s bus which crossed the double yellow line. Party depositions had not yet been taken:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3212(f), where facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant, summary judgment may be denied” … . “[M]ere hope that some evidence might be uncovered during further discovery is insufficient to deny summary judgment” … . Here, the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiff’s motion consisted solely of legal argument that the motion was premature. However, the defendants did not explain why the bus operator offered no affidavit in opposition countering the plaintiff’s testimony as to how the alleged incident occurred. Moreover, the defendants offered nothing beyond mere speculation and bald conjecture concerning what relevant evidence they hoped to uncover during discovery which would bear on their liability for the alleged incident. …

“To be entitled to partial summary judgment a plaintiff does not bear the . . . burden of establishing . . . the absence of his or her own comparative fault” … ; instead, “[a] violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law” … . Shah v MTA Bus Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 00327, Second Dept 1-19-22

 

, ,

THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS WHICH MUST BE ON DUTY DURING A SHIFT IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE, WHICH IS ARBITRABLE PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT, NOT A JOB SECURITY ISSUE (WHICH IS NOT ARBITRABLE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the number of firefighters which must be on duty during a shift is not a job-security issue and is therefore arbitrable pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA):

Respondent contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that its grievance concerned nonarbitrable job security clauses as the clauses relate only to minimum shift staffing requirements and do not guarantee employment to bargaining unit members during the life of the CBA, a hallmark of a no-layoff job security clause. Respondent further asserts that minimum staffing requirements set forth in … the CBA pertain to health and safety concerns and are properly the subject of arbitration.

… [T]he CBA “does not purport to guarantee a[n] [officer] his or her employment while the CBA is in effect, nor does it prohibit layoffs” … . “It also does not protect officers ‘from abolition of their positions due to budget stringencies'” … . … [T]he CBA only sets forth “minimum staffing on particular shifts” … . Matter of City of Ogdensburg (Ogdensburg Firefighters Assn. Local 1799, A.F.L., C.I.O., I.A.F.F), 2022 NY Slip Op 00237, Third Dept 1-13-22

 

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