You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

IN THIS EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER DISPUTE ABOUT A HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTION, THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EACH PAYCHECK WITH THE PREMIUM DEDUCTION WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT WRONG (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations in this employee-employer dispute about a health insurance premium contribution. The petitioner unsuccessfully argued each paycheck with the premium deduction was an independent wrong which tolled the statute of limitations:

A challenge to an administrative determination must be commenced within four months of the time the determination is “final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]). “A challenged determination is final and binding when it has its impact’ upon the petitioner who is thereby aggrieved” … . An administrative determination regarding payment of salary or pay adjustments is final and binding, and a challenge thereto accrues, when the petitioner receives a check or salary payment reflecting the administrative determination … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the continuing wrong doctrine does not apply here to toll the statute of limitations … . The doctrine “may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct” … . “The distinction is between a single wrong that has continuing effects and a series of independent, distinct wrongs” … . Here, the Town made the determination to classify the petitioner as an employee hired after December 31, 2014, subject to a 15% health insurance premium contribution requirement, as reflected in her first paycheck issued in April 2015, more than two years prior to the commencement of this proceeding. Each subsequent paycheck deduction “represent[ed] the consequences of [that allegedly] wrongful act[ ] in the form of continuing damages,” and was not an independent wrong in itself … . Matter of Salomon v Town of Wallkill, 2019 NY Slip Op 05671, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

THE CLAUSE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH STATED THE AGREED FIREFIGHTER STAFFING LEVEL WAS 36 DID NOT BARGAIN AWAY THE MUNICIPALITY’S RIGHT TO ELIMINATE POSITIONS, THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY’S REFUSAL TO FILL A FIREFIGHTER VACANCY WAS NOT ARBITRABLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence which argued an additional ground for reversal, determined that the municipality had not bargained away (in the collective bargaining agreement [CBA]) its right to eliminate positions or lay off workers for economic reasons. Therefore the municipality’s refusal to fill a vacant firefighter position was not arbitrable (against public policy):

The clause [in the CBA] at issue requires petitioner to fill vacancies as soon as possible to maintain “agreed upon” staffing levels, which, at the effective date of the contract, was 36 firefighters. However, the operative clause does not contain the explicit term precluding downward readjustment of that agreed-upon minimum level that was present in Matter of Burke v Bowen [40 NY2d 264]. Rather, the clause at issue authorizes petitioner to unilaterally eliminate equipment or close a station on 30 days’ notice and requires that the parties bargain the impact of any such change. We conclude that this clause, considered in its entirety, does not meet the “stringent test” necessary to establish that petitioner “bargain[ed] away its right to eliminate positions or terminate or lay off workers for budgetary, economic or other reasons” … . Accordingly, the dispute is not arbitrable for reasons of public policy. Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen’s Assn.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05367, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NOTICE ADDED A NEW THEORY OF CAUSATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend her notice of claim in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The motion was made two years after the complaint was filed and included a new theory of causation:

A timely served notice of claim dated June 1, 2015, alleged, in relevant part, that the steps and/or stairs were “defective,” “uneven, misleveled, smooth” with a “slick surface,” and that the New York City Transit Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter together the defendants), were negligent “in the ownership, operation, control, and maintenance” of the stairs. The plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint dated April 12, 2016, alleging, in relevant part, that her injuries were caused by the defendants’ negligence in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, care, custody, and control of the premises.

More than two years later, in April 2018, the plaintiff moved pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) for leave to amend her notice of claim to remove any mention of the stairs being “uneven, misleveled, smooth” with a “slick surface,” and to add new allegations that the stairs were “defectively installed . . . and/or designed . . . with a hole/gap upon which [the plaintiff’s] foot was caused to trip and fall.” …

“A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability” … . Amendments of a substantive nature are not within the purview of General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … .

Here, the plaintiff’s notice of claim made no allegations of any “hole/gap” in which the plaintiff’s foot got caught, or that the stairs were defectively installed or designed … . Therefore, the proposed amendments were not technical in nature; rather, they were of a substantive nature beyond the purview of General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . Ryabchenko v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 05430, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL IN A POTHOLE IN THE PATH FROM THE BUS TO THE CURB, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant  New York City Transit Authority’s (NYCTA’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff was let off at a bus stop about seven or eight feet from the curb and stepped into a pothole:

NYCTA’s motion was properly denied since the record presents triable issues of fact as to whether NYCTA breached its duty as a common carrier to provide plaintiff with a safe place to board the bus … . The record shows that the bus stopped seven or eight feet from the curb adjacent to the bus stop, with a pothole, into which plaintiff fell, in the path that passengers would take walking from the sidewalk to board the bus. The fact that approximately 10 other passengers safely boarded the bus at the same time that plaintiff fell in the hole while attempting to board does not entitle NYCTA to summary judgment … . Defay v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05325, First Dept 7-2-19

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE CONVEYED TO A DEVELOPER WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL; OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS NOT VIOLATED BY POSTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ONLY SEVEN HOURS BEFORE THE TOWN MEETING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the  public trust doctrine applied to town easements such that the easements could not be conveyed to a developer without legislative approval. The court further held that the Open Meetings Law was not violated by posting relevant documents only seven hours before the town meeting:

… “[A] parcel of property may become a park by express provisions in a deed . . . or by implied acts, such as continued use [by the municipality] [*2]of the parcel as a park” … . “A party seeking to establish . . . an implied dedication and thereby successfully challenge the alienation of the land must show that (1) [t]he acts and declarations of the land owner indicating the intent to dedicate his [or her] land to the public use [are] unmistakable in their purpose and decisive in their character to have the effect of a dedication and (2) that the public has accepted the land as dedicated to a public use” … .

… [P]etitioner alleged in its petition-complaint that the Town Easements were part of the “Auburn Trail linear park” and that they were parkland for purposes of the public trust doctrine. In support of that part of each motion seeking to dismiss the second cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), respondents submitted the conveyances that created the Town Easements. Inasmuch as those instruments provided that the Town Easements were to be used as a “pedestrian pathway” for “public use” and required the Town to restore the easement property to “a park like condition” after construction of the pedestrian pathway, respondents’ own documentary evidence creates issues of fact whether there was an express or implied dedication of the Town Easements subject to the public trust doctrine. Thus, respondents failed to meet their burden of submitting documentary evidence that conclusively refuted petitioner’s allegations … . In addition, deeming the material allegations of the petition-complaint to be true, we conclude that “the allegations in the second cause of action presented a justiciable controversy sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment,” and thus respondents were not entitled to dismissal of that cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) … . Matter of Clover/Allen’s Cr. Neighborhood Assn. LLC v M&F, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05280, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, ,

THE COUNTY IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF, AND THE SHERIFF IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ONLY THE SHERIFF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIRING AND TRAINING OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES, THEREFORE THE INJURED INMATE’S ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action against the county stemming from the injuries and death suffered by plaintiff’s decedent in the Erie County Holding Center was properly dismissed. The court held that the county is separate from the sheriff’s department, which in turn is separate from the sheriff. The county is not responsible for the hiring and training of sheriff’s deputies, which is only the sheriff’s responsibility. Therefore the negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention cause of action against the county was not viable:

The duty to supervise and train Sheriff’s deputies rests with the Sheriff (… County Law § 652). … [T]he County has no similar duty … . Defendants in this case therefore met their initial burden on the motion by establishing that the County was not liable under the theory stated in plaintiff’s fourth cause of action. …

We reject plaintiff’s … contention that the County’s representation that the Erie County Sheriff’s Department lacked a separate legal identity from the County estops the County from contending that it is not the employer of the Sheriff’s deputies. The County correctly stated that “the Sheriff’s Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County . . . and thus an action against the Sheriff’s Department is, in effect, an action against the County itself”… . The Sheriff, however, is distinct from both the County and the Sheriff’s Department  … and thus the County’s representation has no bearing on whether the Sheriff, as opposed to the County, bears the responsibility of hiring, training, and supervising the Sheriff’s deputies. Metcalf v County of Erie, 2019 NY Slip Op 05265, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, ,

THE CITY’S STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTION WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WERE DONE IN THE SUMMER WHEN NO SCHOOL CHILDREN USED THE INTERSECTION, THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THE STUDIES HAD CONCLUDED NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WAS NECESSARY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection pedestrian traffic accident case should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff, the eight years old, attempted to cross the street, Avenue J, to get on his school bus when he was struck by a vehicle. The city submitted evidence that a studies of the intersection had been done which found that no traffic control device was required. Therefore, the city argued, and Supreme Court agreed, it was entitled to qualified immunity precluding suit:

… [I]n the field of traffic design engineering, the [governmental body] is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may not be held liable for a highway safety planning decision unless its study of the traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan . Immunity will apply only “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … .

Here, the City failed to sustain its prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity. The City established that, in response to citizen complaints, it had conducted studies of the subject intersection in 2005 and 2007 and concluded that no traffic control device on Avenue J was warranted. However, the City did not establish that those studies, which took place in the summertime, were conducted at times when the subject schools were in session. The City also failed to establish that the studies addressed the specific concern of schoolchildren crossing Avenue J to reach awaiting buses and, thus, did not establish that it had entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that is at issue in this case … . Tyberg v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05177, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, , ,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER HAS A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS NOT DIMINISHED BY HIRING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR TO WORK ON THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant abutting property owner’s (Hillman’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly denied. Hillman had hired an independent contractor to do concrete work on the sidewalk, but that did not relieve Hillman of his nondelegable duty to keep the sidewalk in good repair (NYC Administrative Code):

Although the “general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor . . . is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts,” an exception arises when the hiring party “is under a specific nondelegable duty” … . Here, Hillman, as the property owner, had a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk, including the sidewalk around the subject sign post stump …

Contrary to Hillman’s contention, the motion court did not conclude that Hillman is, in fact, liable for any alleged wrongs committed by the independent contractor in performing cement sidewalk resurfacing work. Rather, the motion court correctly found that under these circumstances the record raises issues of fact as to whether the cement work ordered by this defendant, the property owner, caused or exacerbated a hazardous tripping condition, and whether Hillman had actual or constructive knowledge of the metal protrusion on the sidewalk outside its building. Factual issues are also presented as to whether the condition was open and obvious, or, alternatively the defect trivial … . Vullo v Hillman Hous. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05087, First Dept 6-25-19

 

, ,

BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY DEREGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that “plaintiffs’ apartments, which are located in buildings receiving tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g, are [not] subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL … .”:

The legislature’s intention, as reflected in the language of the statute at issue here, is clear and inescapable. During “the entire period for which the eligible multiple dwelling is receiving” RPTL 421-g benefits, it “shall be fully subject to control” under the RSL, “notwithstanding the provisions of” that regime or any other “local law” that would remove those dwelling units from such control, “unless exempt under such local law from control by reason of the cooperative or condominium status of the dwelling unit” (RPTL 421-g [6] …) … . The statute does not say that eligible units shall be fully subject to “the provisions of” any local law for the stabilization of rents. Put differently, the notwithstanding clause of the statute evinces the legislature’s intent that any “local law for the stabilization of rents” that would exempt the unit from “control under such local law” does not apply to buildings receiving RPTL 421-g benefits, with the sole exception being for cooperatives and condominiums … . Kuzmich v 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05057, CtApp 6-25-19

 

, ,

NO SHOWING THAT THE AMBULANCE SIREN OR EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE IN USE WHEN THE INTERSECTION COLLISION OCCURRED, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES APPLIED, THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipal defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this ambulance traffic accident case should have been denied. The municipal defendants did not demonstrate that the reckless disregard standard for emergency vehicles applied because they did not present evidence the ambulance siren or emergency lights were in use:

… [W]hile the reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) applies to a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation, who engages in specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the exemptions apply only when the authorized emergency vehicle sounded audible signals such as a siren and displayed at least one red light (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[c]). Here, the municipal defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under the reckless disregard standard of care, as they did not demonstrate that the siren and lights on the ambulance were activated as required for the exemptions set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) to apply … . Wynter v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04993, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

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