You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE-FORCE CASE SET ASIDE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A $200,000 DAMAGES AWARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the verdict awarding plaintiff zero damages for past pain and suffering should have been set aside in this police-excessive-force case (42 USC 1983). The court ordered a new trial unless the parties stipulated to a $200,000 damages award:

Plaintiff sustained injuries when a New York City police officer smashed him in the nose with a bullet-proof shield after entering his apartment to execute a search warrant. After a trial, the jury found that the officer violated plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by using excessive force while arresting him and that the excessive force was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. However, the jury awarded plaintiff no damages for pain and suffering. * * *

However, we find that the jury’s failure to award damages for past pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501[c]; …). The undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff was in pain the first night after being struck, that for about two weeks after the incident his broken nose and orbital bone fractures were “kind of rough,” that he could only breathe through his mouth, that he had to get medication, that he suffered “really bad” headaches, and that he required reconstructive nasal surgery as a result of his injuries. Shimukonas v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07147, First Dept 10-3-19

 

,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted:

Although the photographs submitted in support of the petition may have demonstrated that the City had prior knowledge of the defect in the asphalt, “actual knowledge of the defect is not tantamount to actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim, since the City was not aware of the petitioner’s accident, her injuries, and the facts underlying her theory of liability” … .

A lack of due diligence in determining the identity of the owner of the property upon which the subject accident occurred is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . …

In addition, the petitioner failed to satisfy her initial burden of showing that the City would not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the delay … . Matter of Perez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06774, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

, ,

IN A TAYLOR LAW ARBITRATION, WHERE THE PARTIES CHOOSE THE ARBITRATORS, THE PARTIALITY OF A CHOSEN ARBITRATOR, WITHOUT MORE, IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s request to disqualify New York City’s choice for an arbitrator in this Taylor Law action brought after the petitioner (Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n) and NYC were unable to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner argued the chosen arbitrator (Linn) should be disqualified as biased:

When CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (ii) was … enacted, the phrase “evident partiality” was removed and partiality was made a ground for vacatur only as to neutral arbitrators. * * * Accordingly, the “evident partiality” of a party-appointed arbitrator, without more, is not a ground for vacatur or disqualification.

… If a party-arbitrator’s statements of support for a party’s position were sufficient, without more, as a ground for his or her disqualification, the principle that party-arbitrators need not be neutral would have no meaning. Linn’s statements, although strongly voiced, do not reveal misconduct of any kind or indicate that he will disregard the evidence or has prejudged the issues … . Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 06676, Third Dept 9-19-19

 

, , ,

COURT OF APPEALS 2009 RULING THAT LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS CANNOT DEREGULATE NEW YORK CITY APARTMENTS APPLIES RETROACTIVELY IN THIS CLASS ACTION FOR RENT OVERCHARGES BROUGHT BY TENANTS; THE CLASS, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED AFTER THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter too comprehensive to fairly summarize here, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the class action by tenants in defendant’s large housing complex properly sought repayment of rent overcharges. The complaint alleged the landlord, under New York City rent control and stabilization law, and pursuant to a 2009 Court of Appeals case (Roberts v Tishman, 13 NY3d 270), could not deregulate apartments while receiving so-called “J-51” tax benefits. The landlord argued unsuccessfully that the Roberts decision did not apply retroactively. The First Department remanded the case for recalculation of the overcharges and further held that Supreme Court should not have expanded the class. With regard to the expansion of the class, the court wrote:

CPLR 902 provides that a class action “may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits.” However, that provision also states that “[an] action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under [CPLR] 901 have been satisfied.” Those requirements are generally referred to as “numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” (City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 508 [2010]). CPLR 902 further requires the court to consider a range of factors before certifying a class.

Here, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in expanding the class. The court’s order failed to analyze whether class action status was warranted based on the criteria set forth in CPLR 901 and CPLR 902. Conducting that analysis ourselves, we find that the redefined class represents such a fundamental change in the theory of plaintiffs’ case that expansion of the class would be improper. When the class was originally certified, plaintiffs maintained, and the court agreed, that its members were tenants who received deregulated leases while the complex was receiving J-51 benefits. The expanded class, however, would include tenants who never lived in the complex during defendant’s receipt of J-51 benefits, and who received regulated leases for their tenancies. Thus, the legal issues for this group of tenants are separate and distinct from those of the original class. Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 06578, First Dept 9-17-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS LIABLE FOR HER BABY’S BRAIN DAMAGE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S AMBULANCE BROKE DOWN ON THE WAY TO THE HOSPITAL, CAUSING A DELAY IN DELIVERY; DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY, WHICH PROVIDED THE AMBULANCE, WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF; THE MUNICIPALITY CAN NOT BE HELD LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint against the airport emergency medical service alleging liability for a delay in getting plaintiff to the hospital was properly dismissed. Plaintiff suffered complications giving birth which were alleged to have resulted in the baby suffering brain damage. The ambulance provided by defendant broke down and plaintiff was transferred to another ambulance. The defendant was deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the plaintiff and the municipal defendant. Therefore the defendant could not be held liable:

“Protecting health and safety is one of municipal government’s most important duties” … , and emergency medical services “have widely been considered one of government’s critical duties” … . …

… [D]efendant could not be held liable to the plaintiffs unless it owed them a special duty … . One way to prove 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) the party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Of the four factors, the “justifiable reliance” element is particularly “critical” because it “provides the essential causative link between the special duty assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury” … . Halberstam v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2019 NY Slip Op 06479, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY VALIDATED 25 SIGNATURES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION WHICH HAD BEEN INVALIDATED BY THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THEREBY ALLOWING THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO RUN IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly validated signatures which had been declared invalid by the Oneida County Board of Elections, allowing the Democratic candidate for Oneida County Executive to run in the upcoming election:

The designating petition had been invalidated by respondent Board of Elections of County of Oneida (Board), which determined in response to objections filed by James Genovese (respondent) that the designating petition contained 22 fewer valid signatures than required. After a hearing, Supreme Court validated 25 signatures that had been invalidated by the Board and thus ordered that petitioner be declared a duly qualified candidate of the Democratic Party for County Executive. …

With respect to the merits, we reject respondent’s contention that the court erred in validating the signatures at lines 2 through 4 and lines 6 and 7 of page 28 of the designating petition. Each of those signatures had listed by them the same street address, but no apartment numbers were included even though testimony at the hearing established that there are “maybe 60 [to] 70” apartments at that address. We nonetheless conclude that the designating petition adequately set forth the “residence address” of those signers within the meaning of Election Law § 6-130 “by indicating each signer’s respective street address”… , and that an apartment number is not a required component of a residence address for purposes of section 6-130 … .

… The signatures at line 8 of page 17 and line 8 of page 6 were properly validated based on the testimony of the signers identifying their signatures … . The court validated the other three signatures by crediting the testimony of “subscribing witnesses attesting to the identity of [the signers]” … , i.e., testimony that the subscribing witnesses either personally knew the signer or required the signer to present identification before signing … .

… Respondent also contends that the subscribing witness for page 90 of the designating petition engaged in fraud by attesting in his subscribing witness statement that the signer listed at line 8 signed her name in his presence, when in fact her son signed for her pursuant to a power of attorney. In view of the court’s determination to credit the testimony of the subscribing witness, however, we conclude that the record fails to establish that the subscribing witness statement was false, i.e., that the listed signer did not sign the designating petition herself … . Matter of Hennessy v Board of Elections of County of Oneida, 2019 NY Slip Op 06450, Fourth Dept 9-4-19

 

, ,

PROPOSED 2019 ELECTION REFERENDUM REGARDING PUBLIC EDUCATION OFFICIALS IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER IS IMPERMISSIBLY ADVISORY AND WAS PROPERLY DECLARED VOID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the proposed 2019 referendum on amendments to City of Rochester Local Laws regarding the Board of Education, Commissioners and the salaries of School Board Members was impermissibly advisory:

Any local law that “[a]bolishes an elective office” or “reduces the salary of an elective officer during his [or her] term of office” is subject to mandatory referendum (Municipal Home Rule Law § 23 [2] [e]), but an “advisory” referendum—i.e., one that lacks legal effect or consequence—is not permitted in the absence of express constitutional or statutory authority for it … .

Contrary to respondents’ contention, we conclude, for two independent reasons, that the referendum on the Local Law is impermissibly advisory and, thus, that the court properly declared the Local Law invalid and the referendum void. First, the language of section 5 of the Local Law, which conditions its effectiveness on subsequent action by the New York State Legislature, strips the referendum of any binding legal effect (…see … Municipal Home Rule Law § 23 [1]). Second, as the court correctly noted, a local government may not legislate in areas “where the State has evidenced its intent to occupy the field” … , and it is well established that the State has preempted local action in the field of public education … . Matter of Rochester City Sch. Dist. v City of Rochester, 2019 NY Slip Op 06449, Fourth Dept 9-4-19

 

,

TOWN LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM RUNNING FOR TOWN JUSTICE IN TWO DIFFERENT TOWNS SIMULTANEOUSLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Town Law did not prohibit simultaneously running for Town Justice in two different towns:

At issue is the portion of Town Law § 20 (4) providing that “[n]o person shall be eligible to hold more than one elective town office.” Petitioner interprets this to mean that no person may hold more than one elective office, even if those offices are in separate towns. Bacon [respondent] asserts that this language prohibits a person from holding more than one elective office only within the same town. Because the quoted language is ambiguous and both proffered interpretations are reasonable, we must view the language in the context of the whole statute … . …

Viewing the prohibition in context, Town Law § 20 makes provision for town offices for each town, by class, and contains no other language suggesting that one person cannot fulfill elective town offices in more than one town. Moreover, the prohibition is contained in the same sentence as a provision allowing a town board to consolidate its own town offices and positions, strongly suggesting that the entire subdivision (4) of Town Law § 20 refers to what is permitted in an individual town. …

We further agree with Supreme Court that the offices of town justice in separate towns are not incompatible offices. …Serving as town justice in two separate towns involves jurisdiction over separate, defined geographic town boundaries and each town court thereof (see Town Law § 2). Moreover, the Legislature has expressly recognized that one person may, under certain circumstances, serve as town justice in more than one town (see UJCA 106 [2]; 106-a, 106-b). Although those circumstances are not present here, these statutes indicate the Legislature’s view that no conflict exists to prevent a person from serving as town justice in two towns simultaneously. Matter of Nichols v Bacon, 2019 NY Slip Op 06434, Third Dept 8-29-19

 

, ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY ABANDONED BY THE TENANT, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPAID WATER CHARGES INCURRED BY THE TENANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency (HCIDA) as the owner of property which had been abandoned by the tenant was responsible to the Village for water charges incurred by the tenant:

… [W]here, as here, an owner “consents to the tenant’s using water in [a] building, supplied through pipes installed by the owner, or continued by the owner, for the purpose of connecting the building with the [municipality’s] water main, the owner assents to the [municipality’s] supplying water to the tenant for use in the building” … . In the case before us, it appears that the water pipes of the facility that were connected to the Village’s water mains “were installed by the owner of the [facility], if not by the present owner, [HCIDA], then by [its] predecessor in title and the connection was never shut off or disconnected by [HCIDA],” and we note that “[t]he only purpose of maintaining a connection between [the facility] and the [Village’s] water mains [was] to have the [Village] supply the [facility] with water”… . Moreover, the lease contemplated that the tenant would incur utility charges as part of its operation, use, and occupancy of the leased facility. “When such assent [to] or arrangement [for the tenant’s use of water] is made, it must be deemed to be made with a view to the existing law” … . We therefore must evaluate the existing law at the time of HCIDA’s assent to the Village supplying water to the tenant in order to determine whether liability for the unpaid water rents may be imposed upon HCIDA. …

… [U]nder the section entitled “Liability for Water Service,” Rule No. 7 of the [Village] regulations provides that “[a]ll bills, whether for use of water or repairs to water service, are a charge against the owner of the premises or property where the water is used, and said bills will be rendered to the owner or occupant of said premises.” Under the same section, Rule No. 8 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll bills for the use of water become due and payable and are a lien on the premises where the water is used” and that “[f]ailure to receive bills for said water services . . . does not relieve the owner and/or consumer from liability to pay.” … Upon construing the regulations as a whole and according to the ordinary and plain meaning of the words therein, we conclude that the regulations provide for the imposition of liability on property owners for water consumed on such property and supplied by the Village.  Herkimer County Indus. Dev. Agency v Village of Herkimer, 2019 NY Slip Op 06237, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED GRAND JURY REPORTS RE: THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT, NONFEASANCE OR NEGLECT IN OFFICE OF THREE PUBLIC OFFICIALS; THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS’ DUTIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that the grand jury reports concerning the alleged misconduct, nonfeasance or neglect in office of three public officials should not have been accepted by County Court. The reports were therefore sealed:

… County Court erred in directing the public filing of three grand jury reports that accused each appellant respectively of misconduct, nonfeasance, or neglect in office (see generally CPL 190.85 [1] [a]). …

“It is incumbent upon the prosecutor to instruct the [g]rand [j]ury regarding the duties and responsibilities of the public servant . . . target[ed by] the probe’ ” … .”Without a charge as to the substantive aspects of the official’s duties, it [is] not only impossible for the [g]rand [j]ury to determine that the public servant was guilty of misconduct, nonfeasance or neglect, but impermissible as well, for it allow[s] the [g]rand [j]ury to simply substitute its judgment for that of the public servant” … . Here, the prosecutor failed to provide the grand jury with any instructions regarding appellants’ substantive duties in office. Matter of May/June 2018 Oneida County Grand Jury Report (John Doe #1), 2019 NY Slip Op 06356, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

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