You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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

 

,

PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CASE; THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE THREE-MONTH DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking leave to file late notices of claim should have been granted. The claims arise from groundwater contamination linked to chemicals (PFOS and PFOA) used at a county airport. The Second Department noted that the county had timely notice of the essential facts of the claims, the petition was brought three months after the notices of claim were due, and the county did not demonstrate and prejudice resulting from the delay:

… [T]he County’s alleged negligent ownership and operation of the Gabreski Airport site, resulting in contamination of the petitioners’ water supply with toxic chemicals, constitute the essential facts of the claims, which are common to all the petitioners and were made known to the County by the prior notices of claim … .

Inasmuch as the County acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts of the petitioners’ claims, the petitioners made an initial showing that the County was not prejudiced by their delay in serving the notices of claim … . Moreover, the petitioners sought leave to serve late notices of claim only a little more than three months after the statutory period had expired … . In opposition, the County failed to rebut the petitioners’ showing that the County was not prejudiced by their delay with any particularized evidence … . The County did no more than assert that the petitioners failed to meet their burden to show that the late notice would not substantially prejudice the County … .

“A petitioner’s lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is not necessarily fatal when weighed against other relevant factors” … .  While the petitioners’ assertions that they were not aware of the County’s involvement in the cause of the incident does not constitute a reasonable excuse for their failure to file a timely notice of claim, the absence of a reasonable excuse “is not in and of itself fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and the absence of prejudice” … . Matter of Brooks v County of Suffolk, 2019 NY Slip Op 08561, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, , ,

CITY’S DETERMINATION IT WOULD NOT DEFEND A POLICE OFFICER IN A SUIT ALLEGING THE OFFICER’S USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; HIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTED “INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING” WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the City of Buffalo’s ruling that petitioner police officer was not entitled to defense and indemnification by the City in an action against the officer alleging use of excessive force. The facts were described in the dissent as follows: “Numerous Buffalo police officers, including Officer Corey Krug, were deployed to keep order at Chippewa Street, a popular location for late-night drunken revelry. In the course of doing his job, a 30-second excerpt of a video filmed by a local TV station crew shows Officer Krug performing his duties with what appears to be excessive force: asking an unarmed young man, Devin Ford, why he returned to the area, throwing him onto the hood of a car, striking him in the leg several times with a baton and stopping only when another officer saw the incident and told him to stop. Criminal charges were filed against Officer Krug for the use of excessive force, and Mr. Ford filed a civil suit against him.” The Court of Appeals upheld the determination that Officer Krug was not acting within the scope of his employment when he dealt with Mr. Ford:

Given the narrow question before us and under the circumstances presented here, we cannot say that the City’s determination was “irrational or arbitrary and capricious”… . Insofar as the record supports the City’s conclusion that petitioner was not “acting within the scope of his public employment” under Buffalo City Code § 35-28 because his conduct constituted “intentional wrongdoing” and violated the City’s rules regarding the use of force, the City’s determination was not “taken without regard to the facts” … . Matter of Krug v City of Buffalo, 2019 NY Slip Op 08546, CtApp 11-26-19

 

,

BASED UPON EXECUTIVE LAW 63 AND TWO EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY GOVERNOR CUOMO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND CHARGE PERJURY ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY A DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEFORE A GRAND JURY CONVENED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE POLICE SHOOTING OF AN UNARMED CIVILIAN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant, a district attorney, could be prosecuted by the Attorney General (OAG) for perjury allegedly committed by the district attorney before a grand jury convened by the Attorney General. The grand jury was convened to investigate whether the district attorney had engaged in misconduct when investigating the police shooting of an unarmed civilian. The authority of the Attorney General’s investigation and indictment is Executive Law 63 and two Executive Orders issued by Gov. Cuomo:

Executive Law § 63 (13) provides that the Attorney General “shall . . . [p]rosecute any person for perjury committed during the course of any investigation conducted by the [A]ttorney[][G]eneral pursuant to statute . . . [and] [i]n all such proceedings, the [A]ttorney[][G]eneral may appear . . . before any court or any grand jury and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties necessary or required to be exercised or performed in prosecuting any such person for such offense.” * * *

Although Executive Law § 63 (2) permits and requires the Governor to define — in the pertinent executive order — the scope of OAG’s authority regarding a particular investigation or prosecution … , the investigation is still conducted pursuant to that statute, albeit within a scope defined by the executive order. The Legislature, by enacting Executive Law § 63 (2), statutorily gave power to the Governor to call upon OAG to conduct investigations. That the statute and executive order must necessarily work in tandem does not diminish or eliminate the statute as a source of authority for OAG to conduct the investigation.

Here, as typical under these situations, OAG obtained authority to conduct the 2017 grand jury investigation through a combination of Executive Law § 63 (2) and EO163. The statute gives OAG power, but only when the Governor “require[s]” OAG to act … . Relatedly, the Governor would have no authority to give powers to the Attorney General — through an executive order or otherwise — without the Legislature having granted the Governor that ability. Indeed, the Court of Appeals has noted “that the Attorney[]General has no general authority to conduct [criminal] prosecutions and is without any prosecutorial power except when specifically authorized by statute” … . Therefore, we reject the conclusion that the phrase “pursuant to statute” excludes investigations conducted by OAG pursuant to an executive order issued by the Governor under the authority granted to him by statute, namely, Executive Law § 63 (2). OAG’s authority to investigate defendant was derived from that statute, at least indirectly through the conduit of an executive order issued thereunder. People v Abelove, 2019 NY Slip Op 08453, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TOWN CLERK’S RECORDS WERE SEARCHED; TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town did not demonstrate that it did not receive written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect in this slip and fall case. The town’s motion for summary judgment was therefore properly denied:

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the Town submitted the deposition testimony of a project supervisor for the Town’s Department of Public Works, who testified that he directed an administrative aide to perform a record search of “the Town’s complaint database.” The Town also submitted an affidavit from the administrative aide for the Department of Public Works who conducted the search. The administrative aide stated that her duties included “searching the official records of the Department of Public Works” to determine “whether the Department of Public Works ha[d] been provided with any prior written notice” of any defects in the area where the incident occurred. The administrative aide stated that her search revealed that “the Town was not in receipt of any written notice or written complaints.”

While this evidence established, prima facie, that the Town’s Department of Public Works did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect in the sidewalk, neither the deposition testimony nor the affidavit state specifically that the Town Clerk’s records were searched for prior written notice of the alleged defect … . The Town’s failure to provide specific evidence that the records of both the Department of Public Works and the Town Clerk were searched for prior written notice constitutes a failure to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Otto v Miller, 2019 NY Slip Op 08417, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

, ,

THE LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED TENANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE LOFT LAW FOLLOWING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD; HERE THE LANDLORD HELD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDED THE TENANTS’ RESIDENCES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; THE LANDLORD HAD SETTLED WITH THE TENANTS, AGREEING TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO RENT STABILIZED RESIDENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) the settlement agreement between that landlord and tenants providing that the landlord would take steps to obtain a certificate of occupancy and convert the property into rent stabilized residences should not have been annulled in its entirety; (2) the tenants’ attempt, based on the settlement, to withdraw their applications for coverage of he property under the Loft Law was properly denied. The property in question was commercial property which included residences for which no certificate of occupancy had been issued:

The Loft Law is designed to integrate “uncertain and unregulated residential units, converted from commercial use, into the rent stabilization system in a manner which ensures compliance with the Multiple Dwelling Law and various building codes” … . The Loft Law was created to regulate the conversion of industrial, manufacturing, and commercial space into residential space. It enables an owner to rent space in a building while the structure is undergoing conversion pursuant to building department, fire department, and other regulatory requirements necessary to obtain a certificate of occupancy for a residential building. The work necessary to legalize a building for residential use is subject to specifically prescribed time periods (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 284[1]), and the Loft Board is specifically charged with determining interim multiple dwelling status and other issues of coverage, including coverage applications (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 282).

Here, the Supreme Court should have confirmed the Loft Board’s determination rejecting the tenants’ proposed withdrawal of their coverage applications and remitting the coverage applications … for adjudication. Contrary to the tenants’ contentions, the Loft Board had jurisdiction over the coverage applications (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 282), and the coverage applications did not become moot upon the tenants’ proposed withdrawal with prejudice of the applications. Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York provides that the Loft Board may review settlement agreements and exercise discretion to reject a proposed settlement and remit matters for further investigation and adjudication (see NY City Loft Board Regulations [29 RCNY] § 1-06[j][5]). There is nothing in that rule that limits the Loft Board’s review of settlement agreements or its authority to re-open and remit a coverage application. Matter of Dom Ben Realty Corp. v New York City Loft Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 08188, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

PETITIONERS’ EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined petitioners’ retaliation and discrimination claims against the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) should not have been dismissed. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here:

It is undisputed that petitioners sufficiently stated the first two elements of an employment discrimination claim on behalf of Bharat and Kubair under both the State and City HRLs[Human Rights Law’s] — namely, that they are both members of a protected class and were well qualified for their respective positions …. Petitioners also sufficiently stated the third element — that they were adversely (State HRL) or differently treated (City HRL) …. In particular, petitioners allege that DOT’s failure to upgrade Bharat to SMME II status (a position with greater salary and pension benefits) was discriminatory conduct as a less qualified white employee received the upgrade. * * *

Bharat’s allegations are sufficient, at the pleading stage, to permit the inference that the reason he was not awarded an upgrade and the determination was issued against him was because of his involvement in the prior federal action against the DOT, which resulted in the issuance of a consent decree that subjected the DOT to significant damages … . The petition provides additional support for an inference of retaliation in the fact that an employee with less experience was upgraded over Bharat shortly after the consent decree was issued. Matter of Local 621 v New York City Dept. of Transp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08014, First Dept 11-6-19

 

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