You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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

 

,

MAINTENANCE FEES IMPOSED BY THE TOWN FOR TRIMMING AND REMOVING BRUSH ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE NOT TAXES, THEREFORE THE TOWN IS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FROM THE COUNTY FOR UNPAID MAINTENANCE FEES, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two justice dissent, determined that maintenance fees imposed by the town for trimming and removing brush from private property are not taxes. Therefore the town cannot seek credit from the county for unpaid maintenance fees:

Section 936 (1) of the RPTL [Real Property Tax Law] provides that the county guarantees the town’s “taxes” by crediting the town “with the amount of . . . unpaid delinquent taxes.” The question raised on this appeal is whether the maintenance charges are “taxes” for the purposes of RPTL 936 and thus whether the County respondents must credit the Town petitioners for the amount of any such charge that goes unpaid or is delinquent.

The maintenance charges are assessed against individual properties for their benefit and thus do not fall within the general definition of “tax,” which instead contemplates ” public burdens imposed generally for governmental purposes benefitting the entire community’ ” … . Nor do those charges constitute “special ad valorem levies” as defined by RPTL 102 (14). A ” [s]pecial ad valorem levy’ ” is “a charge imposed upon benefitted real property in the same manner and at the same time as taxes for municipal purposes to defray the cost, including operation and maintenance, of a special district improvement or service” (id.). Although the definition of “tax” does, in certain enumerated circumstances, include “special ad valorem levies” (RPTL 102 [20]), the maintenance charges are not special ad valorem levies because they are not used to defray the cost of a “special district improvement or service” (RPTL 102 [14]). Maintenance charges also are not assessed “ad valorem” because the amount of the charge is not based on property value but is instead based on the actual expense to the town. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the charges are “special assessments” as defined by RPTL 102 (15), we note that the definition of “tax” specifically excludes “special assessments” (RPTL 102 [20]). Matter of Town of Irondequoit v County of Monroe, 2019 NY Slip Op 06235, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED BOARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DROWNING CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DIED AFTER GOING OVER A SUBMERGED DAM; ALTHOUGH THE BOARD WAS NOT LIABLE PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE DAM UNDER AN ESPINAL EXCEPTION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BOARD OWNED THE DAM (A DANGEROUS CONDITION); THE BOARD IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined soil the soil conservation and watershed board’s motion for summary judgment in this wrongful death case was properly denied. The board operated and maintained a dam pursuant to a contract with a federal agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The dam was submerged and plaintiff’s decedent sustained drowning injuries which led to his death after he waded into the water and went over the dam. Supreme Court should not have held that the board had entirely displaced the NRCS responsibilities for operation and maintenance of the dam (and therefore was liable under contract pursuant the third Espinal exception). However the board did not demonstrate it did not own the dam and summary judgment was properly denied on that ground. In addition the board was separate and distinct from the conservation districts. So granting summary judgment to the districts did not require the same relief for the board. Finally the court noted that the assumption of risk doctrine applies only to sporting events and had no applicability to these facts:

… “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 138) although, as relevant here, the third exception to that rule applies where the contracting party has “entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . * * * We … conclude that “the contract between [the Board] and the [NRCS] was not so comprehensive and exclusive that it entirely displaced the [NRCS’s] duty to maintain the premises safely, such that [the Board] owed a duty to [decedent]” … . …

While the Board established that it did not own the creek or the banks adjacent thereto … , its submissions are insufficient to establish as a matter of law that it did not own the subject dam, which allegedly constituted and created the dangerous condition … .

The Court of Appeals has made clear that, “[a]s a general rule, application of assumption of the risk should be limited to cases appropriate for absolution of duty, such as personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues” … . Here, decedent was not engaging in a sporting event or recreative activity that was sponsored or otherwise supported by the Board, nor was he wading and swimming at a designated venue … . Suzanne P. v Joint Bd. of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 06343, 8-22-19

 

, , ,

REFUSING SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AS RENT PAYMENT VIOLATES THE WEST SENECA FAIR HOUSING CODE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, reinstated a permanent injunction prohibiting the landlord from refusing “Section 8” vouchers for rent, The refusal violated the West Seneca Fair Housing Code (WSFHC) which prohibits discrimination based upon a person’s source of income:

WSFHC § 71-3 (A) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful . . . [t]o refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, national origin, source of income or because the person has a child or children” (emphasis added). Remedial legislation such as WSFHC § 71-3 (A) ” should be liberally construed to carry out the reforms intended and to promote justice’ ” … . ” A liberal construction . . . is one [that] is in the interest of those whose rights are to be protected, and if a case is within the beneficial intention of a remedial act it is deemed within the statute [or ordinance], though actually it is not within the letter of the law’ ” … .

We conclude … that Section 8 vouchers constitute a “source of income” under WSFHC § 71-3 (A). Such vouchers are plainly a recurrent benefit, measured in terms of money, that constitute financial gain to the recipient. Although the term “source of income” is undefined in the WSFHC, similar ordinances enacted in other local codes have expressly included Section 8 vouchers as a source of income … , which suggests that such vouchers are a “source of income” under the broad language of the WSFHC. People v Ivybrooke Equity Enters., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06299, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

FAILURE TO PAY TAXES UNDER PROTEST PRECLUDES AN ACTION TO RECOVER THE PAYMENTS WHEN THE RELEVANT TAX RULE IS INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s putative class action to have Nassau County disgorge fees collected pursuant to the Nassau County Administrative Code for tax map certification letters issued by the County Clerk for real estate closings was properly dismissed. It is not explicitly stated, but apparently the taxing rule under which the fees were collected had been invalidated at some point:

“The settled law is that the payment of a tax or fee cannot be recovered subsequent to the invalidation of the taxing statute or rule, unless the taxpayer can demonstrate that the payment was involuntary” … . Where the payment is “necessary to avoid threatened interference with present liberty of person or immediate possession of property, the failure to formally protest will be excused” … . “Further, where the payment of a tax or fee is based on a material mistake of fact, the payment may be recovered even if it was made without protest” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not pay the fees under protest. Falk v Nassau County, 2019 NY Slip Op 06202, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

, , ,

THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PLACING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON EXPRESSIVE MATTER VENDORS IN CITY PARKS ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined that the restrictions placed on expressive matter vendors’ (EMV’s) use of public parks were valid and enforceable. “Expressive matter is defined as ‘materials or objects with expressive content, such as newspapers, books or writings, or visual art such as paintings, prints, photography, sculpture, or entertainment’ …”.

… DPR [NYC Department of Parks and Recreation] published proposed revisions to the rules applicable to EMVs. It held a public hearing, and based on comments at the hearing as well as written comments, revised the proposed rules. … Under the revised EMV Rules, while EMVs may sell in almost all City parks if they comply with certain requirements, they are restricted in Union Square Park, Battery Park, High Line Park, and portions of Central Park below 86th Street, where they may only sell their items, on a first-come, first-serve basis, in certain designated areas, and only one vendor is allowed to sell at each spot. The EMVs may always sell in the nonenumerated areas, including other City parks and sidewalks.  * * *

I. The EMV Rules do not conflict with the City Council’s legislative intent, as expressed in Local Law No. 33 of 1982. * * *

II. The EMV Rules do not violate vendors’ rights under the New York Constitution. * * *

III. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Law. * * *

IV. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs leave to amend to add a separation of powers claim. * * * Dua v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 2019 NY Slip Op 06154, First Dept 8-20-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A FIREFIGHTER PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT EXPLAINED IN DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s setting aside the verdict in this personal injury action brought by a firefighter pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a. The firefighter alleged he tripped over a torn rug in the fire department office. The torn rug violated provisions of the NYC Administrative Code. The Second Department took great pains to explain the criteria for setting aside a verdict as a matter of law and as against the weight of the evidence pursuant to CPLR 4404:

Although there were no other individuals present when the plaintiff fell, his supervisor immediately responded to “the loud bang” that resulted from the accident. The plaintiff’s supervisor prepared a report that morning, which stated that the plaintiff had tripped on a piece of loose rug. Another one of the plaintiff’s supervisors testified that he responded to the location of the accident and observed “a ripped carpet there.” Photographs of the tear in the carpet that caused the plaintiff to fall were admitted into evidence and identified by the plaintiff’s witnesses. * * *

The plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, he felt a “popping in [his] leg.” A doctor who examined the plaintiff after the accident, Leonard Harrison, testified that the plaintiff tore his hamstring as the result of the subject accident.

The City did not present any evidence to show that the plaintiff’s accident was caused by something other than the tear in the carpet, or that the accident did not occur at all. Although the jury was not required, as a matter of law, to credit the plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony …  the City’s efforts to impeach the plaintiff as to the cause of the accident were particularly weak.  * * *

Despite the City’s attacks, the plaintiff’s testimony as to the cause of the accident was consistent throughout the course of the trial. Moreover, his testimony regarding the cause of the accident was consistent with the testimony he gave at his deposition, in which he repeatedly testified that “[his] foot got caught on a piece of torn rug, where [he] los[t] [his] balance and tripped.” The plaintiff’s trial testimony was also consistent with the reports he gave to his supervisor and to doctors shortly after the accident occurred.

On this record, any conclusion that the plaintiff’s accident was the result of some other unidentified cause, or that the entire incident was fabricated, could only be based upon mere speculation … . Annunziata v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06055, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, , ,

FIBER OPTIC CABLES AND ENCLOSURES ARE TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the fiber optic cables and equipment at issue constitute taxable property under RPTL 102, in that the statutory exception for radio and television signals was not demonstrated to be applicable:

…  [T]ax exclusions are never presumed or preferred and before [a] petitioner may have the benefit of them, the burden rests on it to establish that the item comes within the language of the exclusion.’ Moreover, a statute authorizing a tax exemption will be construed against the taxpayer unless the taxpayer identifies a provision of law plainly creating the exemption . . . Thus, the taxpayer’s interpretation of the statute must not simply be plausible, it must be the only reasonable construction’ ” … . …

… [P]etitioners contend that their fiber optic installations are not taxable property pursuant to RPTL 102 (12) (i) (D) because, inter alia, petitioners use those properties to some unspecified extent to transmit “news or entertainment radio, television or cable television signals for immediate, delayed or ultimate exhibition to the public” … . We reject that contention. In light of petitioners’ failure to establish the percentage of their fiber optic installations that are used for those purposes, we may accept their contention only if we conclude that any such usage of fiber optic installations, no matter how slight, is sufficient to exclude the properties from the tax. That is not ” the only reasonable construction’ ” of the statute … , indeed, it is “simply [not plausible” … . If we accept that interpretation, based on the proliferation of uses of cell phones to stream video, television, and other programming, all fiber optic cables will be excluded from taxation. That, however, conflicts with the Court of Appeals’ determination in T-Mobile Northeast, LLC that such property is taxable (32 NY3d at 608). Moreover, RPTL 102 (12) (i) provides that taxable property includes all “wires, poles, supports and inclosures for electrical conductors upon, above and underground used in connection with the transmission or switching of electromagnetic voice, video and data signals between different entities.” Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Erie County, 2019 NY Slip Op 05913, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COUNTY CLERK TO RECORD A MORTGAGE, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH HAD ALLEGEDLY BEEN LOST; AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT IS AN APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADMISSIBLE FORM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was entitled to an order requiring the county clerk to accept a copy of a mortgage for recording (the original allegedly had been lost and was never recorded). The Second Department further determined that an attorney affidavit was an appropriate vehicle for the submission of the documents to be recorded, which were in admissible form:

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the first cause of action, which sought an order directing the Suffolk County Clerk to accept a copy of the mortgage for recording. The County Clerk has a statutory duty that is ministerial in nature to record a written conveyance if it is duly acknowledged and accompanied by the proper fee (see Real Property Law §§ 290[3]; 291; County Law § 525[1]). “Accordingly, the Clerk does not have the authority to refuse to record a conveyance which satisfies the narrowly-drawn prerequisites set forth in the recording statute” … . Here, the copy of the mortgage submitted on the motion, which is notarized, was subject to recording … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for this relief … , and the plaintiff’s failure to submit an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the facts was not fatal to the motion. The affidavit or affirmation of an attorney, even if he or she has no personal knowledge of the facts, may serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, e.g., documents and transcripts … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Wright, 2019 NY Slip Op 05966, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, , , ,

NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS BROUGHT BY A DISABLED FORMER POLICE OFFICER CONCERNING GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to all defendants in this action by a disabled former police officer concerning claims for General Municipal Law 207-c benefits:

With respect to the City defendants, … we conclude that the court properly dismissed the negligence and gross negligence causes of action against them inasmuch as they were entitled to governmental function immunity based on the discretion they are afforded in administering payments of General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits … . Although plaintiff’s negligence and gross negligence causes of action involved the health care services that he was receiving, the City defendants were engaged in a governmental function because they were merely administering the payment of General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, i.e., they did not actually provide plaintiff with health care services ;;; . Moreover, the City defendants were entitled to immunity inasmuch as the administration of section 207-c benefits involved the exercise of their discretion and the record establishes that the City defendants denied payment of the disputed claims for benefits after actually exercising this discretion … .

… Plaintiff was not a party to the contracts between [the remaining] defendants and City defendants, and therefore liability may be established where, inter alia, “the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). Here, the undisputed evidence established that the [defendants] did not have authority to deny payment of plaintiff’s claims for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. That authority rested, at all relevant times, with the City defendants. Thus, it cannot be said that these defendants launched any “instrument of harm” because they never made the decision to deny any of plaintiff’s claims for payment of medical care and treatment. …

… [W]e note that plaintiff, as a public employee, may not sue his employer under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, as plaintiff has done here … . Where, as here, plaintiff’s causes of action are “related to the terms, conditions and privileges of his employment[, i.e., his entitlement to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c, they] are covered by Title I” and not Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act … . Vassenelli v City of Syracuse, 2019 NY Slip Op 05878, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

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