You are here: / Municipal Law
,

THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 (HSTPA) DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGE ACTIONS UNDER THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) COMMENCED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN ROBERTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, over a three-judge dissent, determined the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) did not apply retroactively to extend the look back period for rent overcharge actions from four to six years, and did not alter the overcharge calculation methodology for pre-Roberts actions. The opinion and the dissent are too comprehensive and detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [T]hese four appeals … present a common issue under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL): what is the proper method for calculating the recoverable rent overcharge for New York City apartments that were improperly removed from rent stabilization during receipt of J-51 benefits prior to our 2009 decision in Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. (13 NY3d 270 [2009]). …

… [T]he HSTPA includes amendments that, among other things, extend the statute of limitations [and] alter the method for determining legal regulated rent for overcharge purposes and substantially expand the nature and scope of owner liability in rent overcharge cases … . The tenants in these cases urge us to apply the new overcharge calculation provisions to these appeals that were pending at the time of the HSTPA’s enactment, some of which seek recovery of overcharges incurred more than a decade before the new legislation. * * *

We … decline to create a new exception to the lookback rule and instead clarify that, under pre-HSTPA law, the four-year lookback rule and standard method of calculating legal regulated rent govern in Roberts overcharge cases, absent fraud. * * *

We conclude that the overcharge calculation amendments [enacted by the HSTPA] cannot be applied retroactively to overcharges that occurred prior to their enactment. Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2020 NY Slip Op 02127, CtApp 4-2-20

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ‘RECKLESS DISREGARD’ STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this police-car traffic accident case should not have been granted. The Second Department held there was a question of fact whether the police officer was an “authorized emergency vehicle” triggering the “reckless disregard” standard of care:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when a vehicle she was operating collided with a police vehicle operated by the defendant Moira T. Larmour, a police officer. According to Larmour’s deposition testimony, the collision occurred when Larmour, who had been traveling west, made an “exaggerated u-turn” in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop of an unrelated vehicle for an allegedly expired inspection sticker and accelerated her vehicle, which spun on wet pavement and came into contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle, which was traveling east. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 qualifiedly exempts drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an “emergency operation” … . An “emergency operation” is defined under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b as, among other things, pursuing an “actual or suspected violator of the law.” Those privileges set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 include passing through red lights and stop signs, exceeding the speed limit, and disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions … . However, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), “[t]he foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his [or her] reckless disregard for the safety of others.” This is commonly referred to as the reckless disregard standard of care, which requires a plaintiff to establish that a police officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others in order to impose civil liability upon that officer … . Anderson v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2020 NY Slip Op 01894, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the defendant City’s issuing permits allowing defendant CAB to convert property from manufacturing to retail. Plaintiff operated a grocery store 450 feet from CAB’s property. The Second Department held proximity was not enough to confer standing on plaintiff:

“In land use matters, . . . [the plaintiff] must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” … . “An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury” … . “However, this does not entitle the property owner to judicial review in every instance” … . “Rather, in addition to establishing that the effect of the proposed change is different from that suffered by the public generally, the [property owner] must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects” … . Thus, “even where [the property owner’s] premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular [property owner] itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged standing on the basis of proximity, issues and interests within the zone of interests, and adverse impacts. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to commence this action. The plaintiff failed to allege any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . 159-MP Corp. v CAB Bedford, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

, , , , ,

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AMOUNTED TO AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE, NOT AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION; SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES TO THE TOWN ENCROACHED UPON THE TOWN’S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the correspondence between the property owner (PCP) and the town concerning proposed construction created an agreement to agree, not an enforceable settlement agreement allowing construction; and (2), Supreme Court’s directing what the town could and could not consider with respect to the construction project encroached upon the town’s administrative authority:

… [T]he letters that the court found to have memorialized the settlement agreement did not contain all the material terms of the settlement and constituted no more than an agreement to agree … . [The town] stated therein only that it was “now in a position to agree to a settlement of the mass and scale issues,” but that first it would “need to receive, review and approve all of the items that it normally reviews in connection with any application it receives.” Any agreement was further conditioned on [the town’s] receipt of additional documentation from PCP, including “an accurate, to-scale site plan” and further roof specifications … .

We further conclude that, in the absence of an enforceable settlement agreement, the court’s hearing on the issues of mass and scale, subsequent decision rendering findings of fact related to PCP’s new application for a certificate of approval, and remittal to [the town] for consideration of that application with specific directives regarding what [the town] could and could not consider were impermissible intrusions into respondents’ administrative domain … . Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 01812, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall because abutting property owners are not responsible for the condition of tree wells in a sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 places the duty to maintain a sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition on the owner of the property abutting the sidewalk, and provides for civil liability for injuries proximately caused by the failure to so maintain the sidewalk. However, the statute does not extend that duty of maintenance to City-owned tree wells or provide for civil liability for injuries occurring in City-owned tree wells … . Thus, liability may be imposed on the abutting landowner for injuries caused by a dangerous condition in a tree well only where the landowner has “affirmatively created the dangerous condition, negligently made repairs to the area, [or] caused the dangerous condition to occur through a special use of that area” … .

Here, [defendant] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it had no duty to maintain the City-owned tree well, did not create the allegedly dangerous condition, did not negligently repair the sidewalk abutting the tree well, and did not cause the condition to occur through any special use of the tree well. Powroznik v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01655, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

, ,

ICE ON SIDEWALK MAY HAVE PRE-EXISTED RECENT SNOW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the ice on which plaintiff slipped and fell pre-existed the recent snow fall. Plaintiff slipped and fell at around 7:30 am and, pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code, defendant had until 11 am to clear the recent snow (storm in progress rule):

Because it snowed overnight, defendant had until 11 a.m. to clear any fresh snow and ice … . However, an issue of fact exists regarding whether the ice on which plaintiff slipped was preexisting. Plaintiff testified and submitted witness affidavits to the effect that the ice was dirty and trod upon, and had been present for days … .

Moreover, while defendant submitted certified climatological records from Central Park in reply and in opposition to plaintiff’s cross motion, defendant cannot remedy a fundamental deficiency in its moving papers with evidence submitted in reply … , although they may be considered in opposition to plaintiff’s cross motion. In any event, the records show that the temperatures remained below or only slightly above freezing during much of the six days after defendant asserts that the last snow fall occurred, and defendant offers only speculation that such temperatures would have melted previous accumulations of snow and ice. Ruland v 130 FG, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01558, First Dept 3-5-20

 

,

SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s alleged failure address sidewalk defects caused by tree roots was not affirmative negligence and therefore was not actionable in this slip and fall case:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City to the abutting property owner, except for sidewalks abutting one-, two-, or three-family residential properties that are owner occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes” … . Administrative Code § 7-210, however, “does not shift tort liability for injuries proximately caused by the City’s affirmative acts of negligence” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the abutting building at issue was not a one-, two-, or three-family residence, and that they did not affirmatively cause or create the alleged defect in the sidewalk … . Moreover, even assuming that the defendants were responsible for the maintenance of the tree and that the tree’s roots caused the alleged sidewalk defect, the defendants’ alleged failure to maintain the roots would, at most, constitute nonfeasance, not affirmative negligence … . Dragonetti v 301 Mar. Ave. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01144, Second Dept 1-19-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE WAS NOT ADEQUATE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE INCIDENT AND DEMONSTRATED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Although the excuse was inadequate, the respondents had timely notice of the incident and were not prejudiced by the delay:

In determining whether to grant an extension, the key factors to consider are: (1) “whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame”; (2) “whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter”; and (3) “whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense” … .

Here, although petitioners failed to offer any reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve a notice of claim, this failure is not, standing alone, fatal … . Indeed, petitioners sufficiently demonstrated that respondents acquired actual notice of the event within a reasonable time thereafter, and that respondents would not be substantially prejudiced in their defense by the delay. Specifically, there is a surveillance video of the accident [which]  … the claims administrator … acknowledged having in its possession approximately six months after the accident. Moreover, the operator of the lift that injured petitioner was employed by respondents.

In addition, the correspondence … suggests that … only one month after plaintiff’s accident, respondents’ insurers were aware that the claims administrator anticipated that petitioner would be asserting a claim based on the … . … Our conclusion is further supported by the relatively short delay in petitioners’ moving for leave to file a late notice of claim. Matter of Sproule v New York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01015, First Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

CONDEMNEE WAS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES (ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS) BASED UPON THE DIFFERENCE IN COMPENSATION BETWEEN THAT OFFERED BY THE VILLAGE AND THE AWARD BY THE COURT IN THIS EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING; THE STATUTORY INTEREST RATE OF 6%, NOT 9%, SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that some of the additional allowances for fees and costs (pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 701) should not have been granted and the statutory interest rate of 6%, not 9%, should have been applied. The additional allowances were sought based upon because the court awarded more compensation to the condemnees (Ferguson and Executive) than that offered by the condemnor (the Village):

Pursuant to EDPL 701, where a court’s award to a claimant in a condemnation proceeding is “substantially in excess of the amount of the condemnor’s proof” and where the court deems it necessary to “achieve just and adequate compensation,” the court may award the claimant an additional sum for costs including attorneys’ and other fees. The goal of this statute is to ” assure[ ] that a condemnee receives a fair recovery by providing an opportunity for condemnees whose property has been substantially undervalued to recover the costs of litigation establishing the inadequacy of the condemnor’s offer'” … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court’s award of $721,671 exceeded the Village’s advance payment of $575,000. While the difference is not insignificant, we find that it does not substantially exceed the Village’s advance payment within the meaning of EDPL 701 … . …

Although the Village, in effect, concedes that the Supreme Court’s award to Executive of $159,596 substantially exceeded its advance payment of $61,044, it correctly points out that Executive was unsuccessful as to the bulk of its claims for compensation and received an award of 16.4% of the $973,000 it sought. Contrary to the Village’s assertion, since Executive’s attorneys were compensated on a contingent basis, their fees were perforce proportionate to their success. Accordingly, the portion of the additional allowance awarded to Executive representing their fees should not be disturbed … . …

Although the Village, in effect, concedes that the Supreme Court’s award to Executive of $159,596 substantially exceeded its advance payment of $61,044, it correctly points out that Executive was unsuccessful as to the bulk of its claims for compensation and received an award of 16.4% of the $973,000 it sought. Contrary to the Village’s assertion, since Executive’s attorneys were compensated on a contingent basis, their fees were perforce proportionate to their success. Accordingly, the portion of the additional allowance awarded to Executive representing their fees should not be disturbed … . Matter of Village of Haverstraw, 2020 NY Slip Op 01068,  Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, , ,

DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SEEKING OVERTIME PAY IN FEDERAL COURT ON THE GROUND NO NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED DID NOT PRECLUDE, PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA, AN ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of the action concerning overtime pay in federal court, on the ground no notice of claim had been filed, did not preclude the action in Supreme Court seeking leave to file a late notice of claim:

… [T]he federal court dismissed the New York Labor Law claims for failure to file a timely notice of claim (see County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e). …

… [S]o much of the petition as sought leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc is not barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Although collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue which was raised and decided in a prior action or proceeding … , the issue of whether the petitioners could obtain leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) was not litigated or decided by the 2017 federal order. As the issue was not litigated, the petitioners are not precluded from raising it … .

Res judicata also is inapplicable to so much of the petition as sought leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … . Since the federal court was without jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioners could obtain leave to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[7]), the petitioners are not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from seeking a determination of this issue … . Matter of Chodkowski v County of Nassau, 2020 NY Slip Op 01058, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

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