You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

THE TOWN RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER LINE ALONG A NATURE TRAIL WAS ANNULLED BY THE 4TH DEPARTMENT, THE TOWN BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUIRED ‘HARD LOOK’ AT THE EFFECTS OF THE SEWER-LINE CONSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN RARE ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES, AS WELL AS THE EFFECTS UPON SURFACE WATERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department annulled the determination allowing an easement to install a sewer line along a nature trail. The Fourth Department held that the Town Board did not take the required “hard look” (required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA]) at the effect of the sewer line on certain endangered and rare animal and plant species, as well as the effects on surface water:

… [T]he New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) made respondent aware that its database indicated the presence of certain endangered, threatened, or rare animal and plant species on the project site. Those species included the northern long-eared bat, the imperial moth, and the northern bog violet. In addition, the database indicated the presence of inland salt marsh. The DEC recommended that respondent conduct a survey of the professional literature and determine whether the project site contains habitats favorable to such species and, if so, that respondent conduct a field survey to determine whether the species are present. The DEC instructed that, if respondent determined that such species are present, modifications should be considered to minimize impact. There is no indication that respondent conducted such a survey. [With the exception of the Indiana bat. the species’] presence was merely noted…, along with the bare conclusion that there would be no significant impact on those species. …

[R]espondent merely set forth general practices for avoiding significant adverse impacts on surface water and stream corridors without providing a reasoned elaboration that, by implementing such practices in this particular project, respondent would successfully avoid any significant adverse impacts on surface water. Matter of Frank J. Ludovico Sculpture Trail Corp. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2019 NY Slip Op 04621, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, , ,

THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND THEREFORE HIS CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined “reckless disregard” standard for the operation of a police car in an emergency situation applied to the facts, and further found that the officer’s conduct did not rise to the level of “reckless disregard:”

We agree with defendants that the court erred in determining that the defendant officer’s conduct was not measured by the “reckless disregard” standard of care under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) … . That standard of care “applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b)” …  and, if applicable, the driver is “shielded from liability unless [he or she] is shown to have acted with reckless disregard’ of the safety of others” … . Here, there is no dispute that the defendant officer was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” and was “involved in an emergency operation” at the time of the accident (§ 1104 [a]). Furthermore, defendants’ submissions in support of their motion established as a matter of law that the defendant officer was performing exempted conduct when he “proceed[ed] past a steady red signal . . . , but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation” … . …

Here, the defendant officer’s uncontroverted testimony established that he was responding to a disturbance call that was “[p]riority 1,” i.e., the highest priority level, and that he took several precautions before proceeding into the intersection against the red light. Specifically, he slowed his vehicle to an almost complete stop, looked to his right and left, and then slowly proceeded into the intersection at a speed of about five miles per hour. When plaintiffs’ vehicle came into the defendant officer’s peripheral vision, he “slammed” his brake and attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiffs’ vehicle. Where, as here, a defendant officer takes precautionary measures before engaging in exempted conduct under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b), the police officer does not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Levere v City of Syracuse, 2019 NY Slip Op 04613, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE COUNTY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) FOR THE NEGLIGENT ACTIONS OF A CORONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE CORONER ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED A PORTION OF THE REMAINS OF PLAINTIFF’S SON TO A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THE TRAINING OF CADAVER DOGS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the county, based upon the alleged negligence of a county employee, should not have been dismissed. It was alleged that a coroner (Jackman) employed by the county transferred human remains (plaintiff’s son) to a volunteer fire company for the purpose of train cadaver dogs:

Although it is generally a question for the jury whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment … , an employer is not liable as a matter of law “if the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business’ “… .

Here, there is evidence that Jackman’s decision to transfer a portion of the remains of plaintiffs’ son (decedent) to defendant Vincent Salerno, the Fire Chief of Cambria, was driven by a work-related purpose, rather than Jackman’s own personal interests … . Furthermore, there are issues of fact whether it was foreseeable that Jackman, in performing his obligations as a county coroner, might negligently remove, transport, or even transfer decedent’s remains. “[F]or an employee to be regarded as acting within the scope of his [or her] employment, the employer need not have foreseen the precise act or the exact manner of the injury as long as the general type of conduct may have been reasonably expected” … . An employee’s “[m]ere . . . deviation from the line of . . . duty does not relieve [the] employer of responsibility” … . …

… [W]e reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in granting Cambria’s motion. The unrefuted evidence showed that Cambria’s employee, Salerno, had only personal motives for requesting decedent’s remains from Jackman, i.e., to further his own interest in training dogs to locate cadavers … . Salerno had no official duties that required him to train cadaver dogs or obtain human remains to train such dogs. Dunn v County of Niagara, 2019 NY Slip Op 04530, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1), A MUNICIPALITY’S MAINTENANCE OF LIGHT POLES IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION TO WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY, THE MUNICIPALITY’S ‘LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE’ DEFENSE COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance when he was injured, which is not actionable pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1). The Third Department further determined that a municipality’s maintenance of light poles is a proprietary function subject to ordinary standards of negligence which is not protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity. The court further held that the “lack of written notice” defense was not a question of law which the municipality could raise for the first time on appeal. The plaintiff was repairing burned out lights which were on strands of decorative lights attached to a light pole. The strands of decorative lights were not fixtures within the meaning of the Labor Law:

… Merchants [a non-profit which had wrapped decorative lights around city light poles] hired plaintiff, as an independent contractor, to replace light strands located on 36 light poles because many of the light bulbs had become inoperable. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a 16-foot aluminum-rung extension ladder when the pole that it was leaning on suddenly fell over. …

… [R]replacement of the light strands, which was necessary because numerous bulbs had burned out, constituted routine maintenance that is outside the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . …

… [A]lthough replacement of a light fixture on a lighting pole is a repair within the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … , under the facts herein, the light strands cannot be considered a fixture. …

Although a municipality may enjoy qualified immunity from liability arising from highway planning and design decisions … , that doctrine does not shield a municipality from liability arising from negligent maintenance. Gutkaiss v Delaware Ave. Merchants Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04527, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS PROPERLY ENFORCED A TOWN RESOLUTION WHICH PROHIBITED CONNECTING A WATER MAIN SERVICING AN AGRICULTURAL AREA TO A NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION; THE DEVELOPERS WERE ‘INTERESTED PERSONS’ AND WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE COMMISSIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION TO ENFORCE THE TOWN RESOLUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, had the authority to enforce a 2004 Town Board resolution which restricted the use of water provided by a water main to existing residential uses and agricultural uses. In 2016 the Town Board passed a resolution allowing a connection with the water main to service a new residential subdivision. The Commissioner brought an Article 78 proceeding to enforce the 2004 resolution and the developers of the residential subdivision were properly allowed to intervene:

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the developers to intervene. Petitioner may well be correct that the developers do not have standing to bring suit to challenge his determination, but “[t]he bases for permissive intervention are broader than they are for standing to originate the proceeding” … . The developers have property interests that will be impacted should petitioner succeed … and all share the view of the Town and respondent Town Supervisor that petitioner lacks authority to enforce restrictions on water main access that the Town Board later attempts to vitiate. In our view, this is sufficient to render them “interested persons” who can at least intervene with regard to that portion of the petition/complaint founded upon CPLR article 78 … . …

A local government enjoys broad autonomy under “the ‘home rule’ provision of the New York Constitution,” but that autonomy does not extend to actions “that conflict with the State Constitution or any general law” (…see NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c] [ii]; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [1]). Among the general laws of New York is Agriculture and Markets Law article 25-AA, which “was enacted upon a finding that many of the agricultural lands in New York state are in jeopardy of being lost for any agricultural purposes due to local land use regulations inhibiting farming, as well as various other deleterious side effects resulting from the extension of nonagricultural development into farm areas” … . …

Petitioner was … within his rights to order the Town to comply with the 2004 resolution following an investigation and, upon the Town’s failure to seek review of his determination and refusal to comply with it, commence the present enforcement litigation … . Matter of Ball v Town of Ballston, 2019 NY Slip Op 04519, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

,

THE CITY ALLOWED THE LOT TO BE USED FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS BUT NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY DEDICATED THE LOT AS PARKLAND, THEREFORE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AND THE CITY CAN DEVELOP THE LAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined land used for a community garden (Lot 142) was never unequivocally dedicated as parkland by the city. Therefore the public trust doctrine did not prohibit the city from developing the land:

Under the public trust doctrine, a land owner cannot alienate land that has been impliedly dedicated to parkland without obtaining the approval of the legislature … . A party seeking to establish such an implied dedication to parkland and thereby successfully challenging the alienation of the land must show that (1) “[t]he acts and declarations of the land owner indicating the intent to dedicate his 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” … . “It remains an open question whether the second prong . . . applies to a municipal land owner”… . Regardless, “[w]hether a parcel has become a park by implication is a question of fact which must be determined by such evidence as the owner’s acts and declarations, and the circumstances surrounding the use of the land” … . “[I]f a landowner’s acts are equivocal, or do not clearly and plainly indicate the intention to permanently abandon the property to the use of the public, they are insufficient to establish a case of dedication'”… .”The burden of proof rests on the party asserting that the land has been dedicated for public use” … .

Here, the defendants submitted evidence showing that the City’s actions and declarations did not unequivocally manifest an intent to dedicate Lot 142 as parkland. Their exhibits showed that the City permitted the community garden to exist on a temporary basis as the City moved forward with its plans to develop the parcel. Their exhibits also demonstrated that any management of Lot 142 by the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation was understood to be temporary and provisional … . Matter of Coney Is. Boardwalk Community Gardens v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04162, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

, , , ,

PETITIONER, WHO CONSENTED TO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER ARREST, MAY SEEK DISCRETIONARY EXPUNGEMENT OF THE DNA PROFILE AND UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS UPON BEING ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, RESPONDENT JUDGE DIRECTED TO DECIDE WHETHER EXPUNGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, granted a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-judge to consider whether the expungement of DNA evidence derived from a sample provided with petitioner’s consent after arrest is appropriate. The petitioner was subsequently adjudicated a youthful offender (YO) and sought expungement on that ground. The DNA evidence is maintained by the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). The First Department concluded that the OCME is subject to the State Executive Law and a court has the discretionary authority to expunge the YO’s DNA profile from the SDIS (index system used for mutual exchange, use and storage of DNA records), along with the underlying DNA records:

[Re: the propriety of the Article 78 proceeding:] In the absence of an available remedy at law (see CPL 450.20), the important issues raised on this appeal will escape this Court’s review unless this petition proceeds … . Moreover, this Court has original jurisdiction over the issues raised because they concern a sitting justice (CPLR 506[b][1]; 7804[b] …). …

There is abundant support for the conclusion that OCME’s responsibilities in testing, analyzing and retaining DNA data is subject to the State Executive Law. Respondent’s arguments that the statutory reference to a “state” DNA identification index in Article 49-B necessarily excludes a local DNA laboratory like that the one operated by OCME, is unavailing. …

… [W]e hold that the same discretion afforded to a court under the Executive Law to expunge DNA profiles and related records when a conviction is vacated may also be exercised where, as here, a YO disposition replaces a criminal conviction. The motion court, in finding that, as a matter of law, it had no discretion, failed to fulfill its statutory mandate to consider whether in the exercise of discretion, expungement of petitioner’s DNA records was warranted in this case. …

Petitioner did not, either expressly or by implication, waive the privilege of nondisclosure and confidentiality by providing his DNA before the court made its determination that he was eligible for YO status. Clearly the Executive Law permits an adult who has voluntarily given his or her DNA in connection with a criminal investigation the right to seek discretionary expungement where a conviction had been reversed or vacated. A youthful offender does not have and should not be afforded fewer pre-YO adjudication protections than an adult in the equivalent circumstances. Matter of Samy F. v Fabrizio, 2019 NY Slip Op 04120, First Dep 5-28-19

 

,

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING PETITIONER’S INJURIES, THE FACTS SUPPORTING THE CITY’S NEGLIGENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION WITH A MODICUM OF EFFORT, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE RELATING TO THE DELAY, PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY WAS NOT FATAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner’s motion to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner, a medical technician, alleged she was struck by an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction (DOC) while the inmate was being treated at Bellevue Hospital. The petitioner reported and discussed the incident with a DOC captain (Obigumeda) on the day it happened and sought to file the notice of claim seven months late:

Supreme Court presumably agreed with respondent’s argument that it lacked notice because petitioner never specified that she had told Obigumeda the manner in which DOC was negligent (namely, by failing to ensure that a correction officer was present when she spoke with the inmate). We disagree.

To the extent that petitioner did not establish actual notice because she did not specify that her description of the assault included a recitation of who was in the room, “municipal authorities have an obligation to obtain the missing information if that can be done with a modicum of effort” … . Here, negligence is the only theory of liability that could be implied by petitioner’s conversations with Obigumeda and, in any event, he could have determined who was in the room during the course of his investigation with “a modicum of effort.” To hold otherwise would turn the statute into a sword, contrary to its remedial purpose … . …

… [R]espondent never provided Supreme Court with any evidence to substantiate that it was prejudiced by the mere passage of time. Instead, respondent made “[g]eneric arguments and inferences” which cannot establish substantial prejudice “in the absence of facts in the record to support such a finding” … .

While petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for service of her late notice of claim, the lack of excuse is not fatal here … . Matter of Rodriguez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03921, First Dept 5-21-19

 

, , ,

THE CITY AND DEFENDANT CORRECTION OFFICER ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ITS EMPLOYEES’ VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983, THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECTION OFFICER FOR “JANE DOE” AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine could not be relied upon to substitute the name of a correction officer for “Jane Doe” in the complaint in this 42 USC 1983 action. The correction officer and the city are not “united in interest.” The city cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violation of 42 USC 1983:

In this action alleging a claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and 42 USC § 1983, plaintiff did not serve the Jane Doe correction officer defendant before the statute of limitations ran. Although the claims against the intended defendant arise out of the same transaction as the claims alleged in the complaint, plaintiff cannot rely on the relation-back doctrine. The correction officer and defendant City are not “united in interest” because “the City cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983” … . Nor can plaintiff’s more than two-year delay in seeking to add the new defendant as a party after learning her identity be characterized as a mistake for relation-back purposes … .

Plaintiff’s reliance on CPLR 1024 is unavailing, as he does not demonstrate diligence in seeking to identify the unknown correction officer prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … . Burbano v New York City, 2019 NY Slip Op 03937, First Dept 5-21-19

 

,

PETITIONER, IN THIS JUDICIARY LAW 509 PROCEEDING, CAN NOT COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF JURORS TO REVEAL THE RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS AND DATES OF JURY SERVICE IN ORDER TO IMPEACH RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY THAT HE RESIDED IN PETITIONER’S BUILDING IN 2008 AND 2009 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO LOFT LAW PROTECTION UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the petitioner in this Judiciary Law 509 (a) proceeding was not entitled to compel the Commissioner of Jurors to disclose respondent’s (Swezey’s) home and mailing address, as well as the dates of Swezey’s jury service. Petitioner was seeking to disprove Swezey’s testimony that he resided in a building owned by petitioner in 2008 and 2009 and was therefore entitled to Loft Law protection under the Multiple Dwelling Law:

Judiciary Law § 509(a) requires that juror “questionnaires and records shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed except to the county jury board or as permitted by the appellate division.” The purpose of the statute is to “provide a cloak of confidentiality for the information which the [juror] questionnaires contain” and to shield all information from disclosure in order to protect a juror’s privacy interest and/or safety (Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Sise , 71 NY2d 146, 152 [1987] … ). This blanket rule bars an individual from seeking any juror records unless the individual “present[s] some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the records would provide relevant evidence” (People v Guzman , 60 NY2d 403, 415 [1983] …).

Here, petitioner failed to provide the necessary factual predicate to obtain these confidential records. Petitioner’s sole reason for requesting Swezey’s juror records is to impeach his testimony … . However, disclosure for the purpose of impairing someone’s credibility has been expressly rejected by the Court of Appeals in People v Guzman.  Matter of A. Trenkmann Estate, Inc. v Tingling, 2019 NY Slip Op 03923, First Dept 5-21-19

 

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