You are here: / Municipal Law
,

THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant abutting property owner demonstrated it was not responsible for the repair of any alleged defects in the public sidewalk in this slip and fall case. The city code imposed liability only if the landowner was notified of the need for repair:

Section 167-50(A) of the Code of the City of Rye provides that “[i]t shall be the duty of the Department of Public Works to require the owner of property abutting upon a street to repair or replace any sidewalk in front thereof that is required to be repaired or replaced,” and “[w]here the owner of such property shall fail to neglect to repair or replace such sidewalk for five days after notice to do so has been served upon the owner . . . the Department of Public Works shall repair or replace such sidewalk, and a statement of 100% of the cost incurred thereby shall be served upon the owner.” Section 167-50(B) imposes tort liability upon landowners for injuries resulting “from the failure of any owner or other responsible person to comply with the provisions of this section.” … [Defendants] established [they did not receive] notice from the Department of Public Works requiring them to perform sidewalk repairs. Accordingly, the … defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they had no statutory duty to repair the sidewalk …  The … defendants’ submissions also demonstrated, prima facie, that … the … defendants [did not create] the defective condition that allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s fall … . DeBorba v City of Rye, 2020 NY Slip Op 04147, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY’S DELAY IN NOTIFYING THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF DECEDENT’S BODY AND THE LOCATION OF DECEDENT’S REMAINS ENTITLES THE NEXT OF KIN TO DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF SEPULCHER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there were questions of fact in this right of sepulcher action stemming from city’s delay in notifying decedent’s next of kin if the identification and location of decedent’s remains.

On June 27, 2003, the plaintiff reported to the police that his 16-year-old son (hereinafter the decedent) was missing, and the New York City Police Department (hereinafter NYPD) commenced a missing person investigation. The decedent’s body was found 10 days later on July 7, 2003. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) conducted an autopsy, but the medical examiner incorrectly determined that the body belonged to a 25 to 30 year old Asian male. Therefore, the body was not identified as that of the decedent. Because the decedent’s body remained unidentified, it was buried in the City public cemetery known as “Potter’s Field” on Hart Island in the Bronx. …

In September or October 2009, the plaintiff and his daughter, the decedent’s sister, provided their DNA samples to the NYPD as part of the missing person investigation. On January 10, 2011, the OCME confirmed that the unidentified body buried in Potter’s Field was that of the decedent. … Approximately one month after the OCME confirmed the identification of the decedent’s body, on February 16, 2011, the NYPD notified the plaintiff of the identification, and further informed him that the decedent had drowned and that the body had been found on July 7, 2003. The next day, the plaintiff was informed by the OCME that the decedent had been buried in Potter’s Field, but he was not informed of the exact location of the burial until 2015. …

“The common-law right of sepulcher affords the deceased’s next of kin an absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial . . ., and damages may be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body” … .  … [W]hen a municipal defendant has all of the necessary identifying information, the obligation of informing the next of kin of the decedent’s death is a ministerial function that creates a special duty running to the decedent’s next of kin rather than to the public at large … .

… [T]here are triable issues of fact as to whether the delays in informing the plaintiff that the decedent had been identified and in informing the plaintiff of the location of the decedent’s burial interfered with the plaintiff’s right of sepulcher … . However, we note that triable issues of fact exist only with respect to the City’s delay in notifying the plaintiff about the identification and the delay in informing him of the location of the burial. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages with respect to the delay from the time the decedent was first reported missing in 2003 until the identity of the decedent’s body was confirmed on January 10, 2011. Cansev v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04145, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

, , ,

THE CITY NEED NOT PROVE THE POLICE CORROBORATED INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR FALSE ARREST STEMMING FROM THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT BASED UPON ‘BAD CI INFORMATION’ (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that, in the context of a civil trial alleging false imprisonment stemming from police officers entering plaintiffs’ apartment to execute a search warrant, the city does not have to prove the police properly corroborated the informant’s allegations on which the warrant was based. Apparently, the informant provided “bad … information:”

To prevail on a cause of action alleging false arrest or false imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove (1) intentional confinement by the defendant, (2) of which the plaintiff was aware, (3) to which the plaintiff did not consent, and (4) which was not otherwise privileged … . “The existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to a cause of action alleging false arrest and false imprisonment” … . Unlike in a criminal prosecution, where the hearsay statements of an informant can only constitute probable cause if it is demonstrated that the informant is reliable and had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge, in a trial in a civil action alleging false arrest or false imprisonment, it is not “appropriate for a jury to determine, as a factual matter, whether the police obtained sufficient corroboration of the information provided by an informant” … . In a civil action resulting from the detention of the occupants of premises searched pursuant to a search warrant, “there is a presumption of probable cause for the detention which the plaintiff must rebut with evidence that the warrant was procured based upon the false or unsubstantiated statements of a police officer” … . Ali v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04138, Second Dept 7-23-20

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK NEXT DOOR TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING; NYC BUILDING CODE 3309.4 IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SUCH EXCAVATION WORK; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT NEED TO SHOW EITHER THAT A LICENSE WAS GRANTED OR THAT PLAINTIFFS TOOK OTHER STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 3309.4 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, overruling precedent, determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in this action alleging damage to plaintiffs’ building caused by defendants’ excavation for a new building next door. The New York City Building Code (BC) section 3309.4 imposes strict liability for damage caused by such excavation work. Here the defendants did not ask plaintiffs for a license in accordance with BC 3309.4 and no license was granted by the plaintiffs. Prior decisions held a plaintiff must show it granted a license for the work, or otherwise took steps to protect the property, before the plaintiff would be entitled to summary judgment on an action alleging a violation of BC 33309.4. Those decisions should no longer be followed:

We hold that where, as here, a plaintiff presents evidence showing, prima facie, that no request for a license was made to the plaintiff in accordance with section BC 3309 before the excavation work began, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability on a cause of action alleging a violation of section BC 3309.4 need not demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff granted the requisite license, or, in the absence of a license, what, if any, actions it took to protect its premises. 211-12 N. Blvd. Corp. v LIC Contr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04134, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE EMERGENCY HAD DIMINISHED AND THE POLICE OFFICER HAD TURNED OFF HIS SIREN AND LIGHTS WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER WAS STILL ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant police officer (Hurley) was engaged in an emergency operation when the officer’s car struck the plaintiffs’ car as the officer made a turn onto the street where plaintiffs’ car was at a stop sign. Although the officer thought the urgency had diminished and had turned off the siren and lights, he was awaiting word that the emergency was over. The police had been called by a resident who saw someone on her porch who then ran into the woods. Another officer had stopped a man who explained he was looking for his dog. That story was being checked out when the accident occurred:

The fact that Hurley believed the call was no longer a “high” priority and had deactivated the lights and siren on his vehicle does not, as the plaintiffs contend, mean that Hurley was no longer engaged in an emergency operation … . An “emergency operation” is statutorily defined to mean, among other things, “[t]he operation . . . of an authorized emergency vehicle, when such vehicle is . . . responding to . . . the scene of a[ ] . . . police call” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b … ). Since Hurley was responding to the scene of a police call at the time of the accident, he was engaged in an emergency operation … .

… Hurley was engaged in privileged conduct at the time of the accident, as the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is permitted to, inter alia, “[d]isregard regulations governing directions of movement” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[b][4] …). As such, Hurley’s conduct was governed by the reckless disregard standard … .

The reckless disregard standard “demands more than a showing of a lack of due care under the circumstances’—the showing typically associated with ordinary negligence claims. It requires evidence that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . “This standard requires a showing of more than a momentary lapse in judgment” … . Here, although Hurley’s conduct may have constituted a momentary lapse in judgment, it did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Proce v Town of Stony Point, 2020 NY Slip Op 04195, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

, ,

FIREFIGHTER WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY IN HOLDING HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BACK PAY FOR THE PRE-HEARING PERIOD OF SUSPENSION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined a firefighter was not entitled to back pay for the suspension period while awaiting a disciplinary hearing because the firefighter (or his attorney) was responsible for the delay:

Civil Service Law § 75 provides that a public employee may be suspended without pay for a maximum of 30 days while awaiting a hearing on disciplinary charges (see § 75 [3]). Although an employee suspended without pay for a longer period under those circumstances is generally entitled to receive back pay, he or she waives any claim to back pay if a delay in the disciplinary hearing beyond the 30-day maximum is “occasioned by” his or her own conduct … .

We agree with respondents that petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement or back pay because petitioner was solely responsible for the delay. Petitioner’s attorney is an experienced practitioner familiar with Civil Rights Law § 50-a. As such, petitioner’s attorney either knew or should have known that, in order to secure production of the [the disciplinary file of Kelly, another firefighter], section 50-a required that he obtain either Kelly’s consent or a court order. Indeed, respondents publicly announced in multiple press releases several months before the arbitration that Kelly’s file was confidential pursuant to section 50-a. Moreover, petitioner’s attorney had specific knowledge of the contents of the file because he was involved professionally in the investigation of Kelly’s misconduct. Based on that experience and knowledge, petitioner could have taken steps to obtain the file long before the arbitration commenced, such as asking Kelly for his consent or commencing a proceeding to obtain a court order. Because petitioner failed to take any action, “the entire period of delay in holding the hearing resulted from his dilatory tactics” … . Matter of Carcone v City of Utica, 2020 NY Slip Op 04103, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

, , ,

WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SALT-SPREADING TRUCK OCCURRED ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PARKING LOT AFFECTED THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PROOF ON THAT ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; DEFENDANTS’ ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY; THE $12 MILLION VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a new trial was necessary on both liability and damages in this traffic accident case. Supreme Court had found the $12,000,000 verdict excessive and had ordered a new damages trial. The accident occurred in a parking lot at LaGuardia Airport during a snowfall and involved a salt-spreading truck. Proof whether the parking was public or private should have been allowed because the reckless disregard standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law) would apply if the parking lot was public. The First Department further found that the defendants’ accident reconstructionist should have been allowed to testify:

Plaintiff, an employee at a Dunkin Donuts franchise in LaGuardia Airport, was involved in an accident with a salt spreading truck operating in parking lot 10 of the airport during a snowfall. The trial court erred in truncating proof on the issue of whether lot 10 was public or private. This error then directly impacted whether the jury should have been charged with the recklessness standard as set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 … . The error in the charge warrants a new trial … .

The court also erred in precluding defendants’ accident reconstructionist from testifying … . The court’s in limine inquiry of the expert concerning scientific studies was not relevant, as the subject of the testimony, accident reconstruction and perception reaction time are not novel scientific theories, such as to require a Frye hearing … . The proposed expert testimony was based on evidence in the record concerning the accident, and was not entirely speculative … . Similarly, defendants’ notice of expert exchange was not insufficient such as to warrant his in toto preclusion. The remedy for any alleged failures in specificity could have been handled by limiting his testimony to the subject matters listed in the exchange (CPLR 3101[d]). Cabrera v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 03993, First Dept 7-16-20

 

,

WATER VALVE CAP OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WHILE PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE STREET WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court but on different grounds, determined the water valve cap over which infant plaintiff allegedly slipped (tripped) and fell while playing basketball in the street was a nonactionable trivial defect. Supreme Court had granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on the ground the city did not receive written notice of the defect:

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury … . However, a property owner “may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip” … . “In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury'” … .

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . “Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s father, photographs, and a transcript of the infant plaintiff’s deposition testimony describing the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. This evidence established, prima facie, that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law and did not possess the characteristics of a trap or nuisance, and therefore, was not actionable … . Acevedo v City of Yonkers, 2020 NY Slip Op 03881, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether forfeiture of defendant’s vehicle would impose an excessive hardship and would constitute an constitutionally impermissible excessive fine. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a weapon which was found in his vehicle:

Plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant, the registered and titled owner of the vehicle, who pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, used the vehicle as a means of committing the crime of criminal possession of a firearm … .

In opposition, defendant, acting pro se, submitted an affidavit and supporting evidence in support of his argument that forfeiture of the vehicle, which he needed for getting to work with his tools and picking up his children from school, would impose an excessive and tremendous hardship on him and his family, particularly given that this is his sole criminal offense, and in light of other mitigating facts. This evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether, under all the factual circumstances, civil forfeiture of the vehicle would be grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore a constitutionally impermissible excessive fine … . Property Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dept. v Nurse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03866, First Dept 7-9-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF A SIDEWALK UTILITIES GRATE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact about whether: (1) a sidewalk grate belonged to the abutting landowner (11 Madison) or the utility (Con Ed); and (2) whether the installation of the grate by the prior owner of the property constituted a special use of the sidewalk:

The record does not demonstrate conclusively that the owner of the sidewalk vault grate on which plaintiff Marie Saez allegedly tripped was defendant Con Ed, rather than the 11 Madison defendants, who owned the property abutting the sidewalk where the grate was located. There is an affidavit by the president of defendant Sapir Realty Management Corp. averring that the grates were already installed when the 11 Madison defendants acquired the property in 2003 and that the 11 Madison defendants had never been advised by Con Ed that they had any responsibility for maintaining the grates over Con Ed’s utility vaults or presented with any plans concerning the grates. There is also evidence that the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor in interest had purchased and installed the non-standard vault gratings, and there is a note on the plot plan for the vault construction stating that this entity was to “supply, install and maintain” the non-standard gratings it had requested. As issues of fact exist whether Con Ed or the 11 Madison defendants owned the gratings, it cannot be concluded that Con Ed was responsible for maintaining the gratings and the area around them in safe condition … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor’s installation of the non-standard vault grates constitutes a special use of the sidewalk by these defendants. Although there is evidence that they had no access to the grates and the vault, the evidence is not conclusive. Moreover, there is evidence that the transformers in the vaults provided electrical service solely to their property … . Saez v Sapir Realty Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03863, First Dept 7-9-20

 

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