You are here: / Municipal Law
,

MISNOMER DID NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY; CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mis-description of the defendant in the summons and complaint did not prejudice the city, which was notice of the plaintiff’s suit:

The summons and complaint were served on Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, which answered on behalf of the City of New York. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been denied and plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the summons and complaint to correct the misnomer granted. The City was not prejudiced by the mis-description and was on notice that plaintiff intended to seek a judgment against it (see CPLR 305[c] … ). Rivera v New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 2020 NY Slip Op 03085, First Dept 5-28-20

 

, , , , ,

MOTIONS IN LIMINE WHICH AFFECT THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ARE APPEALABLE; TWO-YEAR WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE MUNICIPALITIES; PRECLUDING EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED UPON DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff did not allege separate claims for personal injury and wrongful death, therefore the two-year wrongful-death statute of limitations in EPTL 5-4.1, not the one-year-ninety-days statute of limitations for negligence, applied to the actions against the municipalities; (2) motions in limine which limit the scope of the trial are appealable; and (3) preclusion of plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, based upon deficient disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d)(1), was an abuse of discretion. The action arose from a gas explosion at the great grandfather’s house which killed plaintiff’s 15-month-old son. Plaintiff sued the village, the town, the county and the New York State Electric & Gss Corporation (NYSEG). With regard to the motions in limine, the Third Department wrote:

“An order ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable as of right or by permission since an order made in advance of trial which merely determined the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling. However, an order that limits the scope of issues to be tried, affecting the merits of the controversy or the substantial rights of a party, is appealable” … . As to plaintiff’s objection to that part of the order as allowed evidence of the great grandfather’s negligence as a defense to the claim of res ipsa loquiter does not limit the scope of issues or impact a substantial right, such issue is not appealable … . Plaintiff also contends that Supreme Court erred in partially granting NYSEG’s motion to preclude the testimony of Reiber, plaintiff’s economist. Finding that the expert disclosure lacked reasonable detail as to how the value that Reiber assigned to plaintiff’s lost services and support would be calculated, Supreme Court precluded his testimony with regard to said damages. … However, because this ruling restricted plaintiff’s ability to prove and recover damages, this issue is appealable … . Reed v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03054, 5-28-20

 

, , ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ON THE FLOOR RESULTED FROM A RECURRING LEAK WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ROOF-REPAIR CONTRACTORS HIRED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BUT WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO THE CONTRACTORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) in this slip and fall case. However, summary judgment was properly granted to the roof-repair contractors hired by the NYCHA to ensure the roof was watertight. There was no evidence the contractors launched an instrument of harm causing the accumulation of water on the floor which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall. But there was evidence the water on the floor was caused by a recurring leak which should have been noticed by the NYCHA:

… [T]he Ruiz [eyewitness] affidavit established that leaks had existed in the ceiling for a long period of time before the accident, and that water from the ceiling had caused the accident. The photographs of the ceiling show discoloration and peeling paint that could be suggestive of a longstanding, “visible and apparent” condition — dripping water – that NYCHA’s practices and procedures unreasonably failed to observe … . May’s testimony that had he seen a leak he would have placed a bucket underneath it and notified his supervisor fails to account for why he or anybody at NYCHA did not notice the obvious condition of the ceiling, nor does the evidence that there were no complaints regarding leaks on the 20th floor explain why NYCHA’s maintenance staff did not notice it.

… [T]he fact that NYCHA completed the roof replacement before the accident does not absolve it of liability as a landowner. NYCHA failed to establish, through an expert affidavit or otherwise, that any condition that may have caused the leaks discussed in the Ruiz affidavit was actually addressed by the project. However, because [defendants] Liro and Corbex are not landowners but rather mere contractors hired by NYCHA to replace the roofs, they owed no direct duty to plaintiff, but could only be liable to the extent that they launched an instrument of harm, that plaintiff detrimentally relied on their performance of their respective contracts with NYCHA, or that they entirely replaced NYCHA’s obligation to maintain the premises in a safe condition (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). There is no evidence to suggest that either of those three conditions existed here. Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 03063, First Dept 5-28-20

 

,

NEW RULE ALLOWING THE NYC CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD TO INVESTIGATE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS IS INVALID; PUBLIC VETTING PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, in a comprehensive decision too detailed to fairly summarize, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain Rules of City of New York Civilian Complaint Review Board adopted in 2018 were valid, but the 2018 resolution to begin investigating sexual misconduct allegations against police officers was invalid:

Defendant-respondent The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (the CCRB) investigates allegations of police misconduct toward members of the public (NY City Charter § 440[a]). It is empowered to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action upon complaints that allege misconduct involving excessive use of force, abuse of authority, discourtesy or use of offensive language … . At issue in this appeal are certain amended rules adopted by the CCRB in 2018 … and a resolution, also adopted in 2018, to begin investigating sexual misconduct, which previously had been referred to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB). * * *

By declaring that the CCRB would assert jurisdiction over an entire category of misconduct that it had historically referred as a matter of policy, the resolution announced a sweeping policy change that materially affected the rights of all alleged victims of sexual misconduct and allegedly offending police officers “equally and without exception,” and thus amounted to the adoption of a new “rule” … . However, because the CCRB undisputedly did not follow the public vetting process required … for adopting a new rule, the sexual misconduct resolution is a nullity … . Matter of Lynch v New York City Civilian Complaint Review Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 03062, First Dept 5-28-20

 

,

AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE BASED UPON A FINDING THE PLAINTIFF MAY NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE DECLARATORY RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, explained that an action for a declaratory judgment should not be dismissed at the pre-answer stage when the pleading standards are met:

… [T]he plaintiffs alleged that certain provisions of Nassau County Administrative Code, chapter XXI, title D-21-Drycleaners and Laundromats were unconstitutional, unconstitutionally vague, served no legitimate purpose, and lacked any substantial relationship to the legislative intent … . …

” A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable disposition'” … . “[W]here a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy’ (CPLR 3001; see CPLR 3017[b]), a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied” … .

Here, the complaint was sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy (see CPLR 3001 …). A complaint will not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) merely because the plaintiffs may not be entitled to a declaration in their favor … . Laundry Palace U, Inc. v Nassau County, 2020 NY Slip Op 03005, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, , ,

CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM THE POLICE-KILLING OF AN 18-YEAR-OLD BOY AFTER HIS MOTHER CALLED 911 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the City defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this negligence, wrongful death and civil-rights-violation action should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ decedent, 18 years old, was shot and killed by police after his mother called 911. The Second Department noted that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the cause of action based upon defendants’ alleged failure to follow the Patrol Guide for the apprehension of barricaded and emotionally disturbed persons because the relevant actions were discretionary and thus entitled to governmental immunity:

… [A] municipal defendant cannot be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee police officers where it establishes that the alleged negligent acts involved the exercise of discretionary authority … . Discretionary acts “involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result” … . …

… [T]he defendants submitted the deposition testimony of each of the defendant officers who fired at the decedent, as well as the deposition testimony of a nonparty civilian who observed the incident. … [T]he testimonies of these witnesses demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether … the decedent posed a threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to the defendant officers or others sufficient to justify the officers’ use of deadly physical force against the decedent … . …  [T]he City may not rely on the defense of governmental immunity because the defendant officers’ actions, if negligent, would be in violation of the Patrol Guide’s prohibition against the use of deadly physical force, and therefore, not discretionary … . …

… [Re: 42 USC 1983] the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant officers’ use of deadly physical force against the decedent was objectively reasonable under the circumstances … . The defendants further failed to establish, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether a reasonable officer, facing the same situation, could have believed that deadly physical force was necessary to protect himself or herself or others from death or serious physical injury, and that the defendant officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity … . Owens v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO REPAIR; SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOT NYC, PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Education’s (DOE’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff slipped and fell on an exterior step of a school. Questions of fact were raised about the applicability of the storm in progress rule, whether the defect was trivial, and whether the plaintiff was injured by the condition he was hired to repair. However, the City’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted because the slip and fall occurred on DOE property, not NYC property:

… [A]lthough it is undisputed that a storm was in progress at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether an allegedly defective condition with the step caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries … . … There may be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged unevenness of the step was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident … . …

… [T]he defendants submitted the DOE’s 2010-2011 building condition assessment survey for the school, which indicated that the step was in “poor” condition, described the deficiency as “stone deteriorated substrate,” and noted “replace substrate and reset” as a potential action. Although “[p]hotographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable” … , the only photograph submitted by the defendants in their moving papers was a small, black-and-white photograph of the step in the building condition assessment survey for the school, which was indistinct and failed to establish that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law … . …

The defendants also failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff was injured by the condition he was responsible for repairing … . Mejias v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03008, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, ,

MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WERE ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ 911 CALL AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PLAINTIFFS; MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the municipal police and ambulance defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this negligence, wrongful death action. Plaintiff’s decedent died after his wife called 911 and the police and ambulance personnel were unable to revive him. The Second Department found that the municipal defendants were engaged in a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the plaintiffs and the municipal defendants:

… [T]he defendants were engaged in a governmental function as a provider of emergency medical services pursuant to a municipal emergency response 911 system, such that the defendants could not be held liable to the plaintiff unless they owed her a special duty … . One way to establish the existence of a special duty is by showing that the defendant assumed a “special relationship” with the plaintiff beyond the duty that is owed to the public generally … . “The plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing the existence of a special relationship by proving all of the following 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 undertaking” … . Of the four factors, the “justifiable reliance” element is “critical” because it “provides the essential causative link between the special duty assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury” … . …

There is nothing in the record to suggest that Officer Kelly or any of the defendants’ agents lulled the plaintiff into a false sense of security, or induced her to forego other avenues to transport her husband to the hospital, and therefore placed the plaintiff in a worse position than she would have been had the defendants never assumed the duty … . Marks-Barcia v Village of Sleepy Hollow Ambulance Corps, 2020 NY Slip Op 03007, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, ,

DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE NY STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH; PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ON A THEORY OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s cause of action for gender discrimination on a theory of a hostile work environment under the NY City Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed. The Second Department held that the “materially adverse” change in employment conditions, which applies to the NY State Human Rights Law, does not apply to the NY City Human Rights Law. The standard under the NY City Human Rights Law is a showing that plaintiff was subject to an unfavorable change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic. The Second Department took pains to explain the different standards of proof under the State and City Human Rights Laws:

… [U]nder the City Human Rights Law, in order to demonstrate liability, a plaintiff need not establish that she or he was subjected to a “materially adverse” change to terms and conditions of employment, but only that she or he was subject to an unfavorable change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic … . * * *

The alleged comment by Denesopolis [plaintiff’s boss], that he did not “like women on this job because they have babies,” plainly expresses a view of the role of women in the workplace. Considering the totality of the circumstances, which include the plaintiff’s testimony that Denesopolis expressed displeasure upon learning of her transfer to his unit as a pregnant woman, and then again at her second pregnancy, we cannot say that this is a “truly insubstantial case” as a matter of law. In addition, while it might be inferred that the incidents in which Denesopolis publicly reprimanded the plaintiff and referred to her as an “empty suit” and “Sergeant do nothing” were related to deficiencies in her performance as a sergeant, on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A jury could agree with the plaintiff that the conduct was based upon her pregnancies and conclude that the plaintiff was subject to a workplace in which she was treated less well than others because of her gender. Accordingly, the cause of action alleging gender discrimination on a theory of a hostile work environment under the City Human Rights Law must be reinstated.  Golston-Green v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02768, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE HOLDER OF A FIRST MORTGAGE WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE MORTGAGE HOLDER DID NOT NEED TO FILE ITS OWN FORECLOSURE ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS LIEN ON THE SURPLUS TAX-FORECLOSURE-SALE PROCEEDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined that HPD,  the holder of a first mortgage on property which was the subject of a tax foreclosure, was entitled to the surplus funds from the tax foreclosure sale. The issue was whether HPD’s action seeking the surplus was time-barred because it didn’t enforce the lien on the surplus within six years of the tax foreclosure sale. The Second Department held no further action to enforce the lien was necessary because HPD was a defendant in the tax foreclosure proceedings:

… HPD’s appearance in the tax lien foreclosure action put [the property owner] and anyone else interested in a potential surplus on notice of HPD’s claims. To require HPD to commence a separate foreclosure action, when an action to foreclose the tax lien was already pending, would serve no useful purpose. NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v Stell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02802, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

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