You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

THE 1ST DEPARTMENT, OVERRULING PRECEDENT AND JOINING THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, DETERMINED INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES NEED NOT BE NAMED IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and overruling precedent, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scarpulla, determined municipal employees need not be named in a notice of claim. Plaintiff brought negligence, false arrest and false imprisonment causes of action against NYC alleging inhumane treatment by officers at Rikers Island:

The City moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint against the NYPD defendants, arguing that plaintiff failed to satisfy General Municipal Law § 50-e because he did not serve a notice of claim that named the NYPD defendants or John/Jane Doe placeholders … . * * *

Upon additional review of the reasoning of our own precedents, the reasoning of … relevant decisions of our sister departments, and reexamination of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), we now join our sister departments in holding that § 50-e does not mandate the naming of individual municipal employees in a notice of claim. …

… [I]t is well settled that a notice of claim is sufficient so long as it includes enough information to enable the municipal defendant to investigate a plaintiff’s allegations, and “[n]othing more may be required” … . Providing the municipal defendant with the statutorily required elements of the nature of the claim, the time, place and manner in which the claim arose, and the alleged injury, without additionally naming the individual municipal employees involved, does not prevent the municipal defendant from adequately investigating the claim. Armed with the statutorily required information, the municipal defendant is in at least as good a position as the plaintiff to identify and interview the individual municipal employees involved in the claim. Wiggins v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06335, First Dept 11-16-21

 

, , ,

THE STATE PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTICITY-GENERATING WIND TURBINES IN WESTERN NEW YORK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming the approval of the construction of wind turbines for generating electricity by the NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Board), determined: (1) the correct local wind-turbine law for the Town of Freedom was considered by the Board; (2) the Board correctly refused to consider a local wind-turbine law for the Town of Farmersville enacted after the evidentiary phase of the project was complete; (3) the Board properly considered the climate-change effects of the project and the effects on wild life and the land; and (4) the coalition contesting the Board ruling did not have standing to represent the First Amendment rights of the Amish community:

… [T]he Board must determine … whether a proposed electric generating facility “is a beneficial addition to or substitution for the electric generation capacity of the state” and whether “the adverse environmental effects of the construction and operation of the facility will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable” (Public Service Law § 168 [3] [a], [c]), and the Board must consider … “the impact on community character” and any additional “social, economic, visual or other aesthetic, environmental and other conditions” deemed pertinent by the Board … . “[T]he Board was created to provide for an expeditious review process and ‘to balance, in a single proceeding, the people’s need for electricity and their environmental concerns’ ” … . Furthermore, it is settled that “[t]his [C]ourt’s scope of review is limited to whether the decision and opinion of the [B]oard, inter alia, are . . . supported by substantial evidence in the record and matters of judicial notice properly considered and applied in the opinion . . . , are made in accordance with proper procedure . . . and are not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion” … . “The task of weighing conflicting evidence . . . is properly left to the . . . Board” … . Matter of Coalition of Concerned Citizens v New York State Bd. On Elec. Generation Siting & The Envt. & Alle-Catt Wind Energy, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06221, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

,

CLAIMANT, A MEMBER OF THE CITY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW (BAR) HIRED TO REVIEW THE FAIRNESS OF PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ELIBIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a City Board of Assessment and Review (BAR) member, was not an employee of the city and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. BAR members determine the fairness of property tax assessments:

… [C]laimant acknowledged … that neither the City Assessor nor any other City entity has control over BAR’s review and determination of grievances or the means by which such determinations are reached (see RPTL 523, 525, 526). Rather, the City Assessor merely provides BAR with the necessary property information, and once BAR reaches its determination, the role of the City Assessor is limited to adjusting the tentative assessment roll — as necessary — before the assessment roll is finalized (see RPTL 526 [5]). Notably, although the City Assessor could return a determination to BAR to correct “technical” errors, the City Assessor could not alter or modify the determination reached by BAR (see RPTL 526 [5]). Finally, the record reflects that the City Assessor could neither sanction nor terminate a member of BAR.

Based upon the foregoing, the Board’s finding of an employment relationship is not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of McLaughlin (City of Albany–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 06119, Third Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A PLEADING AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ANNEXED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION ESTABLISHED HE FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD, HE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE FALL WAS DUE TO INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 2411 (6) scaffold-fall case was properly denied on evidentiary grounds, but it was not properly denied because the notice of claim was not included with the motion papers. Although the pleadings must be annexed to a summary judgment motion, a notice of claim is not a pleading. The motion was properly denied on evidentiary grounds because it was not demonstrated the fall was the result of a failure to provide adequate safety equipment:

While the defendant correctly contends that CPLR 3212(b) requires that motions for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings, a notice of claim is not a pleading … . …

… [T]he plaintiff relies solely on his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony and his deposition testimony, which merely established that he fell from a scaffold. The plaintiff failed to address whether there were scaffold rails, possible tie off points for a harness, or some alternative fall protection. Without more, the plaintiff’s testimony that he “moved [his] foot” to the left, causing him to step off of the scaffold and into an “empty space,” and that “there was nothing there because [he] stepped on it and . . . thought it was something solid” are insufficient … . Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 06207, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF-RELATOR BROUGHT A QUI TAM ACTION (ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT) AGAINST A BANK ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE QUI TAM ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; EVEN THOUGH THE CITY SETTLED WITH THE BANK IN A RELATED ACTION, PLAINTIFF-RELATOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined the plaintiff-relator, who brought a qui tam action against a bank alleging the bank violated the State Finance Law (re: foreign currency exchanges), was not entitled to a percentage of the related settlement reached by the bank and the city. The plaintiff-relator’s qui tam action had been dismissed for failure to state a claim which, pursuant to the terms of the relevant statute, precluded sharing in the settlement:

… [T]he City reached a $30 million settlement with defendants. The City made an offer of payment to relator. Relator rejected the offer, asserting that under the NYFCA, it was entitled to no less than 15% of the monies received. …

The NYFCA [New York False Claims Act] tracks the federal False Claims Act (31 USC § 3729 et seq.) (the Federal FCA). Accordingly, it is appropriate to look to federal law to interpret the NYFCA … . Federal authority holds that a relator who fails to state a viable claim under the Federal FCA is not entitled to recovery in an action brought by the government, even where that recovery stems from claims that overlap with the dismissed qui tam claims … . We are persuaded by this precedent and find that relator may not receive compensation under the NYFCA when its claims have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Comptroller of the City of N.Y. v Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06033, First Dept 11-4-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED BY THE POLICE; THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL RULES IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE-CHASES THAN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THE INTERNAL RULES COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the plaintiff’s judgment after trial and ordering a new trial in this traffic accident case, determined the defendant police department’s internal police-chase rules should not have been admitted in evidence without a limiting instruction explaining the rules could be considered as some evidence of negligence. The internal rules imposed a higher standard of care for police-chases than the reckless-disregard standard imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a driver who was being pursued by the police. The jury found both the driver and the police negligent:

The Suffolk County defendants are correct that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence, without any limiting instruction, the Suffolk County Police Department Rules and Procedures on vehicular pursuits. An organization’s internal rules or manuals, “to the extent they impose a higher standard of care than is imposed by law, are inadmissible to establish” a violation of the standard of care … .

Here, the rules and regulations at issue imposed a higher standard of care than the reckless disregard standard imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, which “‘qualifiedly exempts drivers of emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation, and precludes the imposition of liability for otherwise privileged conduct except where the driver acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Thus, we conclude that the Supreme Court committed reversible error in admitting the internal rules without providing a limiting instruction that the rules could be considered only as some evidence of recklessness along with other factors … . Foster v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 05956, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

IN APPROVING A WIND TURBINE INSTALLATION THE STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION AND SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER LOCAL LAWS ENACTED BY THE TOWN AFTER THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS CLOSED; THE LOCAL LAWS SOUGHT TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM ON THE PROJECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined the State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (siting board) had properly approved the Bluestone Wind Farm Project. The siting board properly ignored local laws enacted by the town after the evidentiary hearing was closed which attempted to impose a moratorium on the project to allow further study:

The legislative history and intent fully support this decision. In enacting the predecessor to Public Service Law article 10, the Legislature acted with the express purpose of providing “‘for the expeditious resolution of all matters concerning the location of major steam electric generating facilities presently under the jurisdiction of multiple state and local agencies, including all matters of state and local law, in a single proceeding'” … . In its current iteration, article 10 “was enacted in 1992 to provide ‘a comprehensive framework for developing and implementing sound energy policy for the [s]tate that integrates energy planning with consideration of environmental quality and [to provide] a one-stop process for the siting of major electric generating facilities'” … . “One goal of the legislation was to permit comprehensive review of the benefits and impacts anticipated from proposed facilities without unreasonable delay [and,] . . . [i]ndeed, the expeditious resolution of siting applications is a goal noted throughout documents submitted in support of the legislation” … .

This goal was manifested in the 12-month deadline imposed on the Siting Board to issue a final determination on each application before it … . … Public Service Law article 10 requires the inclusion of all substantive local laws in the record by way of a specific exhibit to be incorporated into each application … . Any disputes as to whether a proposed facility complies with a local substantive law are thus intended to be resolved by way of evidence presented during the hearing to the Hearing Examiners, and the statute explicitly places the burden on the municipality to present evidence in support of enforcement of the local law in question … . “Thus, the history and scope of article [10], as well as its comprehensive regulatory scheme, . . . would be frustrated by” last minute laws such as Local Law No. 4 … . Matter of Broome County Concerned Residents v New York State Bd. on Elec. Generation Siting & the Envt., 2021 NY Slip Op 05903, Third Dept 10-28-21

 

,

ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE DO NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the assault and battery causes of action against the city did not require demonstration of a special duty owed plaintiffs by the police:

Plaintiff’s … causes of action sounded in assault and battery, and not negligence. Therefore, the question was not whether the police owed plaintiff a special duty … , but whether the force used against her was more than necessary under the circumstances … . Plaintiff’s deposition testimony concerning the police officers’ conduct toward her supported the elements of a claim for assault and battery … . While defendants did not specifically recall interacting with plaintiff, they described a situation where they were disbursing a large crowd that was gathering around three different fights going on at the same time. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiff may have been pushed or shoved during the course of that incident. “Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide” .. . Butler v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 05810, First Dept 10-26-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER ALLEGED TWO FELLOW OFFICERS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED HIM WITH A TASER; PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE HIS FELLOW OFFICERS IN TORT AND HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine plaintiff police officer’s petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted and his complaint against two fellow police officers should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the two officers negligently tased him. Plaintiff cannot sue the fellow officers in tort, and his exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation:

While a police officer can assert a common-law tort cause of action against the general public pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106(1), “liability against a fellow officer or employer can only be based on the statutory right of action in General Municipal Law § 205-e” … . General Municipal Law § 205-e(1) specifies that “nothing in this section shall be deemed to expand or restrict any right afforded to or limitation imposed upon an employer, an employee or his or her representative by virtue of any provisions of the workers’ compensation law” … .

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, “[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee . . . when such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ” … . Thus, the Workers’ Compensation Law “offers the only remedy for injuries caused by [a] coemployee’s negligence” in the course of employment … . “[A] defendant, to have the protection of the exclusivity provision, must himself [or herself] have been acting within the scope of his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or intentional tort” … . Walsh v Knudsen, 2021 NY Slip Op 05607, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

,

AFTER STOPPING THE CAR OCCUPIED BY TEENAGERS AND ARRESTING THE DRIVER AND A PASSENGER, THE POLICE RELEASED THE CAR TO DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE A CAR WITH MORE THAN ONE PASSENGER UNDER 21; THE DEFENDANT DRIVER THEN HAD AN ACCIDENT: THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE BREACHED A SPECIAL DUTY OWED THE INJURED PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined: (1) the action against the town police department should have been dismissed because the police department cannot be sued as an entity separate from the town; and (2) the action against the town properly survived summary judgment. The police had stopped a car occupied by teenagers and arrested the driver and one passenger for possession of marijuana. The police then released to car to defendant Tatavitto who was not authorized to drive a car with more than one passenger under 21. Tatavitto then had an accident. There was a question of fact whether the town breached a special duty owed to plaintiff by allowing Tatavitto to drive the car:

… [A] special duty has four elements: “‘(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative conduct'” … . Here, there was direct contact between the officers and the occupants of the vehicle. The Town defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the officers, through their affirmative acts, assumed an affirmative duty to the plaintiff, whether the officers had reason to believe that releasing the vehicle to Tatavitto would permit him to drive the vehicle in violation of law, which increased the risk of an accident, and whether their conduct “lulled” the plaintiff into a false sense of security and induced him either to relax his own vigilance or forgo other avenues of protection—which was not offered by the officers—and thereby placed him in a worse position than he would have been had the officers never assumed any duty to him … . Stevens v Town of E. Fishkill Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 05602, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

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