You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SUBWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN AND ALLEGED THE ALLOWED SPEED FOR ENTERING A STATION WAS TOO HIGH; DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SPEED STUDIES HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined the NYC Transit Authority’s (TA’s) motion to aside the plaintiff’s verdict in this subway accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was on the tracks when he was struck by a train. Plaintiff argued the speed regulations allowed the train to enter the station at an unsafe speed. The trial judge prohibited the TA from introducing evidence demonstrating it was entitled to qualified immunity because it had conducted studies to determine the appropriate train speed:

The evidence that the TA proffered, and that the trial court precluded, suggested that it may have been entitled to qualified immunity. … Korach’s (the TA’s expert’s] testimony indicated that the TA’s speed policy was consistent with “universally accepted rapid transit system operating practice” … . Accordingly, Korach should have been permitted to testify about the policies that other rapid transit systems have in place with respect to speed restrictions in subway and train stations, including in cases where those stations are situated on curved sections of track. Further, … the testimony that the TA’s own witnesses would have given was designed to demonstrate that the speed policy enabled the “efficient running of a transportation system which serves millions of passengers every year” … . This language suggests that the trial court’s decision to limit evidence of speed policy decisions to their effects on a particular subway line was too restrictive, since the cases applying qualified immunity in subway speed cases take into account the effects that slower speeds would have on the entire subway system. Pedraza v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 00255, First Dept 1-13-22

Similar issues in a case involving a similar accident in which the Pedraza (supra) trial-level evidentiary rulings on qualified immunity were applied under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Because Pedraza was reversed, this case was reversed as well. Martinez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 00252, First Dept 1-11-22

, , , ,

A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ABSENT AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OR OTHER DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE ZONING CODE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction unless there is an appeal from an order or decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with enforcement of zoning ordinances:

Pursuant to the Code of the Town of Webster, absent an “order, requirement, decision or determination by any administrative official of the Town” charged with the enforcement of the Town’s local zoning ordinance, the ZBA is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal … . * * *

…[W]e conclude on this record that there was no determination … affording jurisdiction to the ZBA to hear petitioner’s appeal … . Matter of Webster Citizens for Appropriate Land Use, Inc. v Town of Webster, 2021 NY Slip Op 07370, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT ALLEGED INJURY IN AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM RUN BY TWO TEACHERS; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THE PRINCIPAL’S APPROVAL OF THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYC Department of Education (DOE) was immune from suit by a student who alleged injury in an afterschool program run two teachers (Polanish and Gallagher) called “Mind, Body & Sport” (MBS). The school principal’s approval of the program was a discretionary act and no special duty was owned plaintiff:

The school principal’s granting of a permit for MBS to operate on school grounds was a discretionary action taken during the performance of a governmental function, and thus, the DOE was shielded from liability by the doctrine of governmental immunity … . Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the DOE owed the infant plaintiff a special duty that would render the DOE liable to plaintiffs for negligent acts … . Likewise, as to the MBS flyer, the DOE cannot be held liable through the doctrine of apparent authority for issuance of the flyer without the required disclaimer. As with the approval of the permit, the school principal’s approval of the MBS flyer involved the exercise of her reasoned judgment and discretionary authority, thus entitling DOE to governmental function immunity … .

The DOE also cannot be held liable for negligently supervising Polanish and Gallagher’s conduct during the MBS program. That the DOE permitted MBS to run as an afterschool program on school grounds does not provide a basis for holding the DOE liable, since “[a] defendant generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others, even where as a practical matter defendant can exercise such control” … . R.K. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07092, First Dept 12-21-21

 

, ,

THE OWNER OF THE OLD BRONX COURTHOUSE HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY OVER THE SIDEWALK/STREET ABUTTING THE COURTHOUSE, DESPITE THE “DEMAPPING” OF THE ABUTTING STREET AND THE CONVEYANCE OF THE “DEMAPPED” STREET TO THE DEFENDANT; THE ACTION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO QUIET TITLE TO THE OWNER’S LAND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the plaintiff’s action claiming ownership of, or an easement over, the sidewalk/street area abutting plaintiff’s property (the old Bronx courthouse) was properly dismissed, with exception of the claim of an easement by necessity. The street abutting the courthouse had been “demapped” by the city and conveyed to defendants before plaintiff purchased the courthouse property. The deed description of the courthouse property was unambiguous and was not altered by a hand-drawn circle around the property on the recorded tax map. The action was not precluded by the statute of limitations because it is an action to quiet title to the plaintiff’s land:

… [W]here, like here, the owner is in possession, the right of action to remove a cloud on title is a continuous one accruing from day to day, and this right is not barred by the statute of limitations until the cloud is continued without interruption for a length of time sufficient to effect a change of title as a matter of law … . “The reason for this rule is that while the owner in fee continues subject to an action, proceeding, or suit on the adverse claim, he or she has a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of such claim and its effect on his or her title, or to assert any superior equity in his or her favor”… . Accordingly, the owner may wait until his or her possession is disturbed, or his or her title is attacked, before taking steps to vindicate his or her right … . “The requirement of prompt action is imposed as a policy matter upon persons who would challenge title to property rather than those persons who seek to quiet title to their land” … . * * *

… [T]he deed contains no reference to the altered Tax Map, with the hand-drawn circle, purportedly intended to change the boundaries of the property. Nor is there any indication on the altered Tax Map of the circle’s purpose. If the parties wanted to change the boundaries of the property described in the deed and Current Tax Map to include a surrounding demapped street, they could easily have done so by making such notation on the deed and altered Tax Map. Liberty Sq. Realty Corp. v The Doe Fund, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07082, First Dept 12-21-21

 

, , ,

PETITIONER ALLEGED HIS ARREST WARRANT WAS BASED UPON FALSE ATTESTATIONS AND SOUGHT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLEGING FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; THE CITY WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ACTION BY VIRTUE OF THE CITY-PERSONNEL’S INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING THE WARRANT AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTS; THE REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim against the respondent City of New York in this false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution action was properly granted. The main issue was whether the city had timely notice of the claim, and therefore was not prejudiced by the delay. Petitioner alleged the arrest warrant was based upon false information. The First Department noted it was not following its prior 2021 decision:

Respondent’s agents procured the allegedly false warrant upon attestations as to probable cause, executed the allegedly false arrest, and generated the reports pertaining thereto; the prosecutor would have had access to those same records and examined same in connection with preparing its opposition to defendant’s motions and in preparing more generally for trial. Indeed, personnel from the special narcotics prosecutor were present during the arrest. Under these circumstances, “knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims within the statutory period can be imputed to the City” … . …

Pursuant to investigatory procedures, the officers, agents, assistant district attorneys, and investigators who were involved in petitioner’s arrest, detention, and prosecution were required to contemporaneously record factual details, including those related to any probable cause determination, so that the District Attorney’s Office might properly evaluate the merits of a potential criminal prosecution and draft an accusatory instrument.  …

While the mere existence of a report under certain circumstances might be insufficient to impute actual knowledge, here those reports were generated by those very persons who engaged in execution of the allegedly false arrest warrant and whose conduct forms the basis of petitioner’s suit. To the extent Matter of Singleton v City of New York (198 AD3d 498 [1st Dept 2021]) differs, we decline to follow it. If we are to depart from settled principle, we should do so explicitly and not on the basis of a one-paragraph memorandum opinion that does not cite or discuss the relevant precedent let alone express an intent to overrule it. Matter of Orozco v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07066, First Dept 12-16-21

,

THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the NYC Water Board was a necessary party in the Article 78 contesting the Board’s ruling on sewer charges. The Article 78 named only the NYC Department of Environmental Protection:

… [T]he appellants correctly contend that the Water Board should be joined as a necessary party to this proceeding. “Persons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants” (CPLR 1001[a]). In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the governmental agency which performed the challenged action must be a named party … . Since the instant petition challenged the Water Board’s … final determination, and the Water Board is the entity which promulgates the rate schedule of sewer rents and wastewater allowances … in the discharge of its duties to fix and collect water and sewer charges in order for the City to maintain the water system … , the Water Board was a necessary party to this proceeding. Indeed, the Water Board would be prejudiced by the judgment purporting to bind its rights when it had no opportunity to be heard … . … [B]ecause the Water Board should have been joined in this action and has not been made a party, and because it is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the judgment must be vacated, and the Supreme Court should order the Water Board summoned in this proceeding so that it may be heard (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Matter of A&F Scaccia Realty Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2021 NY Slip Op 06995, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING PORT AUTHORITY FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE IN A SAFE CONDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging defendant Port Authority breached its duty to maintain the George Washington Bridge (GWB) in a reasonably safe condition must be reinstated. Plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide by jumping from the bridge:

Plaintiff’s decedent died by suicide when he jumped from the George Washington Bridge (GWB), which is owned and operated by the Port Authority. Contrary to the Port Authority’s contention that the complaint is addressed to actions taken in its governmental capacity, both this Court and the Second Department have recently held, in cases involving similar facts, that the Port Authority’s responsibility for maintaining the guardrail on the pedestrian walkway over the Bridge is a proprietary function rather than a governmental function … . .. [P]laintiff states a cause of action by alleging that the Port Authority, as a property owner, “failed to maintain the GWB in a reasonably safe condition by negligently failing to install suicide barriers along the walkways to prevent suicides,” thus presenting a foreseeable risk of harm in light of the allegations concerning the history of the George Washington Bridge’s walkway as a place where frequent suicides occur. Lomtevas v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06953, First Dept 12-14-21

 

, , ,

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff police officer and defendant police were co-employees pursuant a Police Mutual Aid Agreement between two municipalities, the Town of Glenville and the Village of Scotia. Plaintiff, a Glenville police officer, alleged defendant , a Scotia police officer, was negligent in firing her weapon at a suspect, thereby causing a bullet to strike plaintiff. Because the plaintiff and defendant were deemed co-employees pursuant to the agreement, General Obligations Law 11-106 prohibited plaintiff from suing in negligence:

Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106, a police officer may now assert a cause of action sounding in negligence “for injuries suffered while in the line of duty against entities other than municipal employers and fellow workers” … . The issue thus boils down to whether plaintiff and Peck [defendant] were acting as coemployees at the time of the incident, which would bar plaintiff’s action. Based primarily upon the operative provisions of the Agreement, we find that they were coemployees on the night of the incident, thereby insulating defendants from liability. Ferretti v Village of Scotia, 2021 NY Slip Op 06895, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

,

IN THIS SIDEWAIK ICE-AND-SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this sidewalk ice-and-snow slip and fall case, determined; (1) the municipality demonstrated it did not have written notice of the ice-and-snow condition and plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether the municipality created the condition or benefitted from a special use; and (2), the abutting property-owner defendants did not demonstrate that they did not create the ice-and-snow condition. Summary judgment was properly granted to the municipality, but should not have been granted to the abutting property owners:

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 … . There is an exception to this general rule, however, where the landowner has affirmatively created the dangerous condition … . The [abutting property-owner defendants] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their snow removal efforts around the time of the injured plaintiff’s fall did not create or exacerbate the allegedly dangerous condition on the roadway … . Thompson v Nassau County, 2021 NY Slip Op 06878, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST RIVER PARK WILL BENEFIT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY (FLOOD PROTECTION) AS WELL AS THE PARK, THE RECONSTRUCTION SERVES A PARK PURPOSE AND THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS THERFORE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined the planned reconstruction of the East River Park along the waterfront of the lower east side of Manhattan did not require approval by the state legislature pursuant to the public trust doctrine, even though the project benefitted the park and other community objectives (protection against neighborhood flooding):

Petitioners contend that the principal purpose of the project is construction of a coastal shore floodwall to safeguard the residential developments nearby. They argue that the conclusion of a nonpark purpose is warranted because the work proposed is disproportionate to the work required to preserve the Park. There is no dispute that the project will greatly benefit the nearby communities from the risk of coastal flooding. At its core, however, petitioners’ argument is that any project that serves a park purpose cannot serve a dual purpose. Stated differently, that a park purpose is served only if that is the sole objective of a particular project. This is too narrow a reading of the park purpose requirement.

A project that benefits a park as well as other community objectives can still be considered to serve a park purpose under the public trust doctrine. * * * … [E]ven though a coastal flooding protection project will provide communities adjacent to the Park with flood protection, it will also protect the Park from coastal flooding.

Once it is determined that there is a park purpose, the salutary goal of preventing the alienation of parkland is satisfied. Matter of East Riv. Park Action v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06652, First Dept 11-30-21

 

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