You are here: / Municipal Law

PETITION SEEKING A SUMMARY INQUIRY PURSUANT TO THE NYC CHARTER INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ERIC GARNER’S ARREST AND DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking seeking a “summary inquiry pursuant to NYC Charter section 1109” into the circumstances surrounding the arrest and death of Eric Garner. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

This appeal from the grant of a petition for summary inquiry pursuant to New York City Charter § 1109 has its genesis in the fatal arrest of Eric Garner and the subsequent investigations and actions that this tragedy prompted. We find that this is the rare case in which allegations of significant violations of duty, coupled with a serious lack of substantial investigation and public explanation, warrant a summary inquiry to bring transparency to a matter of profound public importance: the death of an unarmed civilian during the course of an arrest. * * *

… Petitioners seek an order convening a summary inquiry into “violations and neglect of duties” by respondents in seven areas:

(1) the stop and arrest of Garner and the force used by officers on him;

(2) the failure, after Garner’s death, to train NYPD officers adequately as to appropriate guidelines for the use of force and the prohibition on the use of chokeholds;

(3) filing false official NYPD documents concerning the arrest and making false statements in connection with NYPD’s internal investigation of Garner’s death;

(4) unlawfully leaking Garner’s alleged arrest and medical histories;

(5) incomplete and inaccurate statements to the media by the City concerning Garner’s arrest;

(6) the medical care provided to Garner; and

(7) the City’s investigation and adjudication of, and imposition of discipline for the foregoing, including false statements by NYPD officers concerning the arrest. Matter of Carr v De Blasio, 2021 NY Slip Op 04412, First Dept 7-15-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE DECORATIVE FENCE IN THE GRASSY AREA BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The plaintiff allegedly tripped over a decorative fence located in the grassy area between the curb and the sidewalk abutting defendants’ home. The defendants argued the fence was open and obvious:

“The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the homeowner defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the decorative fence was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the circumstances at the time of the accident, including the lighting conditions and color of the fence … . Rosenman v Siwiec, 2021 NY Slip Op 04248, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

, ,

THE CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A DEMONSTRATION OF URBAN BLIGHT OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSE; THE SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the determination of the City of White Plains Urban Renewal Agency, held that the agency did not demonstrate the condemnation of the petitioners’ proper served a public purpose. The condemnation was founded on a 25-year-old study which found the area was affected by “urban blight.” The court noted that the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) negative declaration by the agency did not identify the areas of environmental concern and the agency did not take a hard look at them:

… [T]he remediation of substandard or insanitary conditions (i.e., urban blight) is a proper basis for the exercise of the power of eminent domain … . Here, however, the agency relies only on conclusory assertions of blight based upon a 25-year-old urban renewal plan which itself lacks detail or documentation. …

Where a condemning authority does not demonstrate that property is substandard for the purpose of urban renewal, the authority must identify some public purpose other than the purported remediation of blight … . While a condemning authority may select virtually any project which “contributes to the health, safety, general welfare, convenience, or prosperity of the community” … , this broad discretion does not relieve the authority from selecting a particular project and, where demanded by the property owner, submitting that project to judicial scrutiny. Matter of Gabe Realty Corp. v City of White Plains Urban Renewal Agency, 2021 NY Slip Op 04134, Second Dept 6-30-21

 

,

PETITIONER’S INCAPACITATING INJURIES EXCUSED THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, IT SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petitioner’s catastrophic injuries constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a notice of claim and, although the municipality did not have timely notice of the potential lawsuit, the municipality was not prejudiced by the delay:

As a result of the accident, the petitioner allegedly sustained a depressed skull fracture and a subdural hematoma with midline shift, and underwent an emergency craniotomy. The petitioner allegedly has been continuously hospitalized and confined to a bed and a wheelchair, cannot speak, and is fed through a feeding tube.

Due to a mistaken belief as to which municipality owned the location of the accident, the petitioner’s attorneys initially commenced a proceeding against the County of Nassau, the Village of Oyster Bay Cove, and the Town. However, in April 2019, the petitioner’s attorneys allegedly learned for the first time that the accident location was in Laurel Hollow. …

The petitioner’s incapacitating injuries constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving Laurel Hollow with a notice of claim … . Although a police aided case report … did not provide Laurel Hollow with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the petitioner established that Laurel Hollow would not be prejudiced by the delay. Of note, the roller that the petitioner was operating at the time of the accident has been continuously preserved by the petitioner’s employer pursuant to a court order. Matter of Davis v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 2021 NY Slip Op 04133, Second Dept 6-30-21

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THE GRASSY STRIP BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, HERE THE PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION; IN ADDITION, THE VILLAGE CODE DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON PROPERTY OWNERS, AN ISSUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been granted. Although, pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, defendant can be responsible for a dangerous condition in the grassy strip between the sidewalk and a curb, here defendant demonstrated he did not create the condition and the village code did not impose tort liability on abutting property owners. Although the “village code” issue was not raised below, it was a purely legal issue that can be considered on appeal:

The grass strip situated between a sidewalk and a roadway is part of the sidewalk (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 144; Code of the Village of Westbury [hereinafter Village Code] § 215-2 … ). “‘An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty'” … .

Here, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by demonstrating that he did not create the alleged dangerous condition or cause that condition through a special use of the sidewalk … . In addition, while Village Code § 215-12 imposes a duty on owners and occupants of abutting land to keep sidewalks free of obstructions, the Village Code does not specifically impose tort liability for breach of that duty … . Although the defendant did not make an argument based on the provisions of the Village Code in support of his motion before the Supreme Court, his argument in this regard is reviewable on appeal because it is a purely legal argument that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided had it been raised at the proper juncture … . Lamorte v Iadevaia, 2021 NY Slip Op 04126, Second Dept 6-30-21

 

, ,

AS LONG AS BOTH THE CERTIFIED AND FIRST-CLASS-MAIL LETTERS NOTIFYING A MORTGAGEE OF A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE ARE NOT RETURNED, THE MORTGAGEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 1125 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff property owner, pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1125, was properly notified of the tax foreclosure proceedings, despite plaintiff’s allegation that the certified letter was delivered to a post office box, not the street address. RPTL 1125 deems service accomplished if the letters are not returned:

Defendants were required to send the notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding to plaintiff “by certified mail and ordinary first class mail” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] … ). The record contains documentary evidence demonstrating that the petition and notice of foreclosure were sent via certified mail and first class mail to plaintiff at “4153 Broadway” in Kansas City, Missouri — the address for plaintiff as listed on the mortgage … .The record also discloses that neither of these mailings was returned. Accordingly, defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating that they complied with RPTL 1125.

In opposition thereto, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the tracking information sheet for the certified mailing sent by the County. This sheet indicated that the certified mailing was delivered to an unspecified post office box, as opposed to 4153 Broadway, in Kansas City, Missouri. To that end, plaintiff asserts that a material issue of fact exists as to whether it received notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding. The petition and notice of foreclosure sent to plaintiff, however, “shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States [P]ostal [S]ervice within [45] days after being mailed” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] …). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2021 NY Slip Op 04074, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

,

CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the NYC Board of Education was required to provide random COVID-19 testing to city-resident students in charter schools, but not to charter-school staff or to nonparty charter schools:

… Supreme Court erred in directing the City to provide Covid testing not only to children but also to charter school staff, and charter schools which are not parties to this proceeding. Section 912 by its terms directs the school district to provide covered services to “resident children who attend” nonpublic schools, to the same extent such services are provided to children attending public schools (Education Law § 912). The statute does not require that such services be provided to staff or anyone else other than resident children. Accordingly, we modify the judgment, to limit relief to children attending petitioners’ charter schools, and not to children attending nonparty charter schools, nor to staff at any school. Matter of King v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 04083, First Dept 6-24-21

 

, , ,

THE CITY CHARTER PROVISION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF A PENDING TAX FORECLOSURE SALE TO MORTGAGEES AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE MORTGAGEE’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS PROCEEDING; THE MORTGAGEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the city charter provision did not provide for notice of pending tax lien sales to parties other than the owner which violated the due process rights of mortgagees:

“The constitutional guarantee of due process requires that a party who has a substantial property interest which may be affected by a tax lien sale receive notice that is ‘reasonably calculated’ to apprise it of an impending sale” … . Thus, “actual notice of a tax sale must be given to all parties with a substantial interest in the property whose names and addresses are ‘reasonably ascertainable'” … . A mortgagee has a legally protected property interest and is legally entitled to notice of a pending tax sale … .

Here, section 93 of the City Charter of the City of Middletown … does not provide for notice of pending tax lien sales to parties other than the owner, but provides only for post-sale notice 60 days prior to the divesting of all rights in the property. As such, City Charter section 93 fails to comport with due process requirements because it makes no provision for actual notice of impending tax sales to be given to mortgagees of record … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and, as relevant to this appeal, granted that branch of [the mortgagee’s]  motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the City. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v City of Middletown, 2021 NY Slip Op 04006, Second Dept 6-23-21

Similar issue and result in Delacorte v Luyanda, 2021 NY Slip Op 04009, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

, ,

THE ERIE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (ECSO) IS NOT A SEPARATE ENTITY APART FROM THE COUNTY; THE COUNTY MAY BE SUED FOR THE ACTIONS OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE PURSUANT TO RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR; HERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DIED IN HIS CAR AWAITING RESCUE DURING A SNOWSTORM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the Erie County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO) is not a separate entity apart from the county, and the county may be liable for the acts of the sheriff’s office’s civilian employees pursuant to respondeat superior. The lawsuit alleged the defendants failed to timely rescue plaintiff’s decedent who died in his car during a snowstorm:

A sheriff’s office has no legal identity separate from its corresponding county, “and thus an ‘action against the Sheriff’s [Office] is, in effect, an action against the [corresponding] County itself’ ” … . …

Although a “county may not be held responsible for the negligent acts of the Sheriff and his [or her] deputies on the theory of respondeat superior” … , we conclude that a county may be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the sheriff’s civilian employees given the general rule that a sheriff’s office does not exist separately from its corresponding county … . Moreover, and contrary to defendants’ further contention, the County is not entitled to immunity under Executive Law § 25 because that statute was not pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer (see CPLR 3018 [b] …). Abate v County of Erie, 2021 NY Slip Op 03940, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

, , , , ,

BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the underlying criminal matter brought against the plaintiffs (the Melchers) by the town had been terminated in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution action against the town should not have been dismissed. The town brought criminal charges based upon plaintiffs’ construction of docks in a marina. Pursuant to the Navigation Law, the state owns the land beneath the lake and the town, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to bring the criminal charges. The criminal charges had been dismissed on that ground:

In order to maintain a civil action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding, and (4) actual malice” … . A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused where the disposition is final, “such that the proceeding cannot be brought again” … , and the disposition is not “inconsistent with a plaintiff’s innocence” … . Whether a disposition was inconsistent with innocence is a case-specific determination that considers the circumstances of the particular case … .

Here, the 2008 criminal proceeding was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(f) because the Town lacked legal authority to regulate the activity upon which the criminal charges were based. In the dismissal order, the Supreme Court found that “jurisdiction over the [Melchners] ha[d] never been properly obtained and accordingly the [Melchners] [could] not be prosecuted for the offenses alleged.” Under the circumstances, the disposition was not inconsistent with the Melchners’ innocence … . Melchner v Town of Carmel, 2021 NY Slip Op 03830, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

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