You are here: / Municipal Law
, , , ,

PENSION OF POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CAN, UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW, BE REACHED TO SATISFY A $1 MILLION JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE CRIME VICTIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Son of Sam Law trumped the CPLR, the Retirement and Social Security Law, and the Administrative Code of the City of New York with respect to the pension of a former NYC police officer who was convicted of murder and attempted murder and against whom plaintiff obtained a personal injury judgment of more than $1 million:

“Executive Law § 632-a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime by allowing crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source and protecting those funds while litigation is pending” … . … [I]n 2001, the Legislature amended the [Son of Sam] law to allow a crime victim to seek recovery from “funds of a convicted person,” which includes “all funds and property received from any source by a person convicted of a specified crime,” but specifically excludes child support and earned income (Education Law § 632-a [1] [c]). * * *

This Court has found … that CPLR 5205 (c) is superseded by the Son of Sam Law … . Defendant’s assertions that Retirement and Social Security Law § 110 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-264 protect his pension from assignment to satisfy plaintiff’s money judgment are similarly without merit due to the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law … . Prindle v Guzy, 2020 NY Slip Op 00011, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NATURE PRESERVE DID NOT GIVE THEM STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWN’S PURCHASE OF THE PRESERVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioners did not have standing to contest the negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) allowing the town’s purchase of land held by a nature conservancy:

It is well settled that standing to challenge an alleged SEQRA violation by a governmental entity requires a petitioner to demonstrate “that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … . Importantly, “[p]etitioners must have more than generalized environmental concerns to satisfy that burden and, unlike . . . cases involving zoning issues, there is no presumption of standing to raise a SEQRA or other environmental challenge based on a party’s close proximity alone” … .

Here, petitioners claim of standing is based upon the fact that they own property directly adjacent to the nature preserve and have asserted concerns that the Town, in conducting its SEQRA review, failed to consider the impact of increased motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and/or the environmental effect that a newly proposed parking lot and hiking trail would have on the nature preserve. Initially, assuming, without deciding, that petitioners adequately established their ownership interest in the property directly adjacent to the nature preserve, their position as adjacent landowners does not automatically confer standing on them to challenge the Town Board’s negative declaration … . Moreover, petitioners’ asserted concerns fail to allege any unique or distinct injury that they will suffer as a result of the Town’s proposed land acquisition that is not generally applicable to the public at large … . Matter of Hohman v Town of Poestenkill, 2020 NY Slip Op 00013, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

,

A PORTION OF THE NYC CHARTER WHICH ALLOWS UNLIMITED SEARCHES OF PAWNBROKERS, THEIR PERSONNEL, PREMISES, MERCHANDISE AND PAPERS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE UNDERLYING REGULATORY SCHEMES ADDRESSING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND INSPECTIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that the portion of the NY City Charter which gave the police commissioner the power to examine pawnbrokers, their personnel, premises, merchandise and papers was facially unconstitutional because there was no limit on the scope of the searches and allowed for immediate arrest. However the reporting requirements imposed on pawnbrokers are constitutional:

… [W]e hold that NY City Charter § 436 is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it provides that the commissioner “shall have power to examine such persons, their clerks and employees and their books, business premises, and any articles of merchandise in their possession” … . That portion of NY City Charter § 436 is facially unconstitutional because it is unlimited in scope, and provides “no meaningful limitation on the discretion of the inspecting officers” … . NY City Charter § 436 contains no limits on the time, place, and scope of searches of persons or property. It contains no record keeping requirements and it authorizes an immediate arrest for a failure to comply. * * *

… [W]ith respect to the reporting requirements contained in the statutory and regulatory scheme, we … conclude that there is little or no expectation of privacy in the reported information, whether in traditional paper or electronic form, and that the requirements at issue, which are imposed on a closely regulated industry, sufficiently describe and limit the information to be provided, and are reasonably related to the regulatory authority of the agency to which the information is provided … .

With respect to the inspection programs … [:] The regulatory scheme here was not created solely to uncover evidence of criminality. Rather it serves to enforce the reporting requirements that provide consumer protection. Collateral Loanbrokers Assn. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 09354, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

UNION REPRESENTING CITY EMPLOYEES HAS STANDING TO CONTEST THE CREATION OF A NEW CITY DEPARTMENT AFFECTING THOSE EMPLOYEES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the labor union representing employees of the city’s Office of the Building Inspector and Bureau of Code Enforcement had standing to contest an executive order issued by the mayor and related regulations which created a new Building Department:

“[S]tanding is a threshold determination and a litigant must establish standing in order to seek judicial review, with the burden of establishing standing being on the party seeking review” … . A petitioner challenging governmental action must “show ‘injury in fact,’ meaning that [the petitioner] will actually be harmed by the challenged [governmental] action[,]” and, further, that the injury “fall[s] within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the [governmental entity] has acted” … . For an organization to have standing, it must establish “‘that at least one of its members would have standing to sue, that it is representative of the organizational purposes it asserts and that the case would not require the participation of individual members'” … .

Petitioners allege that the Mayor unlawfully engaged in a legislative act by creating the Buildings Department and that this unlawful legislative act brought the union’s members under the auspices/jurisdiction of the Commissioner, who used that unlawful grant of authority to enact a regulation that respondents have relied on to supplant the members’ negotiated rights regarding disciplinary proceedings, as set forth in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. In our view, these allegations would, if proven, demonstrate the requisite harm flowing from the executive order, which would fall within the zone of interests … . Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v City of Schenectady, 2019 NY Slip Op 09342, Thrid Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT ARE SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK CITY’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW; THERE IS NO NEED TO ALLEGE SIMILAR ASSAULTS AGAINST OTHER WOMEN TO DEMONSTRATE ANIMUS ON THE BASIS OF GENDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, over a concurring opinion, determined that plaintiff’s complaint, alleging rape and sexual assault, stated a valid cause of action under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM). The central question on appeal was the meaning of the term “animus.” Supreme Court held that allegations defendant had sexually assaulted other women were properly included in the complaint to demonstrate animus. The First Department held plaintiff’s allegations of rape and assault, without allegations involving other women, were sufficient:

… [P]laintiff’s claims in the amended complaint that she was raped and sexually assaulted are sufficient to allege animus on the basis of gender. She need not allege any further evidence of gender-based animus. Defendant has conceded that the allegations herein are sufficient to show that the acts alleged were “committed because of gender or on the basis of gender.” That the alleged rape and sexual assault was “due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim’s gender” is sufficiently pleaded by the nature of the crimes alleged.

Rape and sexual assault are, by definition, actions taken against the victim without the victim’s consent … . Without consent, sexual acts such as those alleged in the complaint are a violation of the victim’s bodily autonomy and an expression of the perpetrator’s contempt for that autonomy. Coerced sexual activity is dehumanizing and fear-inducing. Malice or ill will based on gender is apparent from the alleged commission of the act itself. Animus inheres where consent is absent. Breest v Haggis, 2019 NY Slip Op 09398, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH STRUCK HIM WHEN HE WAS STANDING IN THE ROADWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN; OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE DECISION INCLUDE THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY, THE TRUCK RENTAL COMPANIES’ LIABILITY, THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff police officer was entitled to summary judgment against the driver of the tractor trailer which struck the officer who was standing in the roadway both under a common law negligence theory and under General Municipal Law 205-e. The court dealt with several other issues including: (1) whether a second police officer was engaged in an emergency operation, giving rise to the reckless disregard standard, when he stopped to assist the plaintiff who had made a traffic stop (the answer is no); (2) whether the second officer was liable based upon the position of his car (the answer is no, the car furnished a condition for the accident but was not the cause); (3) whether the injured officer’s recovery was confined to Workers’ Compensation (there is a question of fact whether the injury was “grave”); (4) whether the Graves Amendment protected the truck rental companies (the answer is yes); (5) whether vicarious liability applies to the truck driver’s employer (there is a question of fact on that issue). With respect to the common law negligence and the General Municipal Law 205-e causes of action, the court wrote:

… [T]he plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative negligence in order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of Burke’s [the truck driver’s] liability on the first cause of action [negligence]. * * *

When the light changed, Burke began his left turn onto northbound Midland Avenue. Prior to beginning his turn, Burke was aware that there was a police officer conducting a traffic stop on foot and a police car parked on the northbound side of Midland Avenue. Although Burke believed he could make the turn safely, the rear of the trailer hit the injured plaintiff. * * *

The plaintiffs also established … Burke’s liability as to … a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-e. … [T]hat statute permits a police officer to bring a tort claim for injuries sustained “while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by . . . superior officer[s]” where such injuries occur “directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments” … . In order to recover under the statute, “a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a) requires a driver to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any . . . pedestrian.” Here, the unrebutted evidence established a prima facie violation of § 1146(a), as it demonstrated that Burke failed to exercise due care to avoid hitting the injured plaintiff. Cioffi v S.M. Foods, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 09251, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

,

PORTIONS OF CITY SIDEWALK ELEVATED BY TREE ROOTS AND “REPAIRED” WITH COLD PATCH; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY ARE LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined: (1) there are questions of fact concerning whether the abutting property owners are liable for this sidewalk slip and fall; (2) there are questions of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition by patching the sidewalk. Plaintiff tripped and fell in an area where the sidewalk had been elevated by tree roots:

… [T]he Charter of the City of Buffalo (Charter) § 413-50 (A) specifically imposes on “owner[s] or occupant[s] of any lands fronting or abutting on any street,” i.e., the property defendants, a duty to maintain and repair the sidewalk and provides that their failure to do so will result in liability for injuries to users of the sidewalk. Contrary to the property defendants’ contention, that duty to maintain and repair extends to damage caused by the roots of a tree owned by the City where, as here, “the local ordinance contains no exceptions to the duty imposed on abutting landowners to maintain the sidewalk, even if the allegedly dangerous condition was created by a root extending from [City] property” … . …

… [T]he evidence submitted by the property defendants in support of their motion, which was then incorporated into the City’s cross motion, raised triable issues of fact whether the City performed the “cold patch” repair to the area sometime before plaintiff’s accident and whether the condition of the sidewalk on the day of plaintiff’s accident was the same as when the “cold patch” was first applied. We thus conclude that the City failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not affirmatively create a dangerous condition or that the dangerous condition was due solely to conditions that developed over time … . Beagle v City of Buffalo, 2019 NY Slip Op 09126, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

, ,

VENUE FOR THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING TO ANNUL A TOWN LOCAL LAW WHICH CREATED A WILDLIFE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TOWN IS LOCATED PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW SECTION 66 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeJoseph, determined Supreme Court properly found that Orleans County, not Niagara County, was the correct venue for this hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a Town of Shelby Local Law creating a wildlife refuge overlay district, and further seeking to annul the Town Board’s negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The legal analysis is too detailed to be fully summarized here:

The primary issue raised on this appeal involves the interplay between three statutory provisions concerning venue, i.e., CPLR 504 (2), CPLR 506 (b), and Town Law § 66 (1) and, ultimately, whether Supreme Court properly granted the motion of respondents-defendants (respondents) to transfer venue of this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action from Niagara County to Orleans County. We conclude that the court properly transferred venue pursuant to Town Law § 66 (1). …

Town Law § 66 (1) provides that “[t]he place of trial of all actions and proceedings against a town or any of its officers or boards shall be the county in which the town is situated.”

We conclude that Town Law § 66 applies and, as such, the proper venue in the instant action is Orleans County rather than Niagara County. Matter of Zelazny Family Enters., LLC v Town of Shelby, 2019 NY Slip Op 09124, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

, , , ,

AN ATTORNEY, A PRINCIPAL IN THE CORPORATIONS OWNING SEVERAL BUILDINGS, WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE IN THE “OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUSINESS” WITHOUT A LICENSE BECAUSE HE ADVERTISED HIS LAW PRACTICE IN SIGNS ON THE BUILDINGS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the corporations which owned the buildings were separate from the attorney, a principal in the corporations, who advertised his law office in signs on the buildings. Therefore the attorney was making space available for outdoor advertising to “others” within the meaning of the NYC Administrative Code regulating outdoor advertising. The code requires “outdoor advertising companies” engaged in the :outdoor advertising business” to be licensed. The attorney (Ciafone) was fined for outdoor advertising without a license:

Contrary to the position of the Appellate Division dissent, preserving the distinction between the corporate entities and Mr. Ciafone does not “penalize him for forming corporate entities to own the buildings for tax and liability purposes”… . Myriad statutes and regulations apply to corporations, but not natural persons; those are not “penalties” for creating a corporate legal entity, but consequences of choosing that form of ownership. The New York City Council could rationally conclude that a corporation engaged in the provision of advertising to others, even others who have an ownership interest in the corporation, should be subjected to greater financial disincentives for violating signage laws than natural persons who are advertising themselves. Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 08976, CtApp 12-17-19

 

, ,

ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was not properly served with an Article 78 petition and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over this Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) action. The process server alleged the petition was delivered to an attorney at the DEP who said she was authorized to receive service. The Second Department found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel, based upon the DEP attorney’s assertion she was authorized to receive service, did not apply:

It is undisputed that the petitioner’s process server did not deliver the notice of petition and petition to the Corporation Counsel, or any other “person designated to receive process in a writing filed in the office of the clerk of New York county” (CPLR 311[a][2]). Because the petitioner did not effectuate service in strict compliance with CPLR 311(a)(2), it is irrelevant that the petitioner’s process server allegedly relied upon the representations of an attorney employed by the DEP … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the DEP should not be equitably estopped from asserting the petitioner’s failure to properly serve the DEP with the notice of petition. The doctrine of equitable estoppel should be invoked against governmental entities sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances … . Estoppel against a governmental entity will lie when the governmental entity acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who is entitled to rely and who changes its position to its detriment or prejudice … . The fact that the DEP’s attorney may have identified herself as an agent who was “authorized by appointment to receive service at that address” is far removed from any clear expression of her status as a person designated to receive process on behalf of the City in a writing filed in the New York County Clerk’s office … . There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the petitioner justifiably relied on any misleading conduct by the DEP which would support a finding of equitable estoppel … . Matter of Exxon Mobil Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2019 NY Slip Op 08670, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

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