You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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

 

,

CITY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE PROTRUDING SIGN ANCHOR IN THE SIDEWALK AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE CONDITION WAS THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-city’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged a sign which had been installed in the sidewalk was missing and she tripped over the protruding sign anchor. The city demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition. And plaintiff was unable to show the condition was the immediate effect of action taken by the city:

… [P]laintiff claimed that defendant affirmatively created the defect by improperly installing the sign in 2006 and failing to routinely monitor its condition thereafter. “However, the affirmative negligence exception to prior written notice statutes applies only where the action of the municipality immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . Plaintiff failed to present any proof establishing that defendant engaged in an activity that immediately resulted in the detachment of the sign and sign pole from its anchor … . Harvish v City of Saratoga Springs, 2019 NY Slip Op 03428, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although the town did not have written notice of the dangerous condition, the town did not demonstrate it did not create the dangerous condition by piling snow that melted and re-froze:

… Since the plaintiff alleged that the defendant affirmatively created the allegedly dangerous ice condition through its snow removal operations, the defendant, in addition to establishing that it did not receive prior written notice, was also required, on its motion for summary judgment, to make a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition complained of … . …

A municipality’s act in piling snow as part of its snow removal efforts, which snow pile then melts and refreezes to create a dangerous ice condition, constitutes an affirmative act excepting the dangerous condition from the prior written notice requirement  … . The defendant’s evidence provided information about its general snow removal operations, but failed to show what the sidewalk abutting the accident site looked like immediately after it completed its snow removal operations. The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the 6 to 12 inches of snow that the plaintiff observed on the sidewalk, making it impassable, was not the product of its snow removal operations. The defendant also failed to submit any evidence as to what the temperature was from the time that it last performed its snow removal operations on January 24, 2016, and the time of the accident. Given that the defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether its snow removal efforts created the ice condition, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied … . Eisenberg v Town of Clarkstown, 2019 NY Slip Op 03319, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

ABUTTING LANDOWNER HAS NO DUTY TO MAINTAIN A TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the abutting landowner (Glynton) in this slip and fall case did not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk tree well where plaintiff fell:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City to the abutting property owner … . However, a tree well does not fall within the applicable Administrative Code definition of “sidewalk” and, thus, “section 7-210 does not impose civil liability on property owners for injuries that occur in city-owned tree wells” … . Here, Glynton established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff fell due to a condition related to the tree well, not due to any condition concerning the sidewalk, and that it had no duty to maintain the tree well … . Barrios v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03311, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO MILITARY LAW, PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED HER NYC POLICE-OFFICER PROBATIONARY PERIOD BY VIRTUE OF HER DEPLOYMENT ON MILITARY DUTY DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Military Law controlled and petitioner, a probationary NYC police officer, must be deemed to have satisfactorily completed her probation by virtue of her military deployment while on probationary status:

Under New York City personnel rules, “[s]ubject to the provisions of the [M]ilitary [L]aw,” the computation of a probationary period is based on time the employee is “on the job in a pay status” (55 RCNY 5.2.2[b]). The personnel rules further provide that, notwithstanding rule 5.2.2, the probationary period will be extended while a probationer “does not perform the duties of the position” (55 RCNY 5.2.8[b]) for instance, while on limited duty status … . These rules are expressly subject to Military Law § 243(9), which provides, in pertinent part, that if a probationary employee is deployed on military duty before the expiration of his or her probationary period, “the time [she] is absent on military duty shall be credited as satisfactory service during such probationary period.”

Military Law § 243(9) is unambiguous in providing that respondents are required to credit the period that probationary officers spend in military service as “satisfactory service” towards completion of the probationary period. The statute does not distinguish between probationers on restricted or modified duty and those on full duty status at the time of deployment, or give respondents discretion to distinguish between types of probationers … . Matter of Aroca v Bratton, 2019 NY Slip Op 03277, First Dept 4-30-19

​

,

POLICE BODY-WORN-CAMERA FOOTAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERSONNEL RECORD AND IS NOT THEREFORE PROTECTED FROM RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-a (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined police officers’ body-worn-camera footage did not constitute a personnel record within the meaning of Civil Rights Law 50-a. Therefore the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y.’s petition for a preliminary injunction prohibiting release of the footage was properly denied:

We find that given its nature and use, the body-worn-camera footage at issue is not a personnel record covered by the confidentiality and disclosure requirements of § 50-a … . The purpose of body-worn-camera footage is for use in the service of other key objectives of the program, such as transparency, accountability, and public trust-building.

Although the body-worn-camera program was designed, in part, for performance evaluation purposes, and supervisors are required, at times, to review such footage for the purpose of evaluating performance, the footage being released here is not primarily generated for, nor used in connection with, any pending disciplinary charges or promotional processes. New York Civil Liberties Union v New York City Police Department (__NY3d__, 2018 NY Slip Op 8423 [2018]), which involved disciplinary matters, does not constrain this analysis. The footage, here, rather, is more akin to arrest or stop reports, and not records primarily generated for disciplinary and promotional purposes. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the body-worn-camera program to promote increased transparency and public accountability. Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y. v De Blasio, 2019 NY Slip Op 03265, First Dept, 4-30-19

 

,

COUNTY NOT LIABLE IN THIS INMATE-ON-INMATE THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this inmate-on-inmate third party assault case was properly granted.  Plaintiff, an inmate in county jail, was assaulted with a pool cue by another inmate (named Batts). The complaint against the county alleged negligent supervision:

… [T]he County defendants demonstrated that prior to the incident, the plaintiff and Batts had a friendly relationship and joked around with each other. They had no prior physical altercations with one another, and Batts had not been involved in any prior violent incidents with other inmates. The County defendants also demonstrated that prior to August 11, 2013, there had been no incident at the facility where an inmate had used a pool cue as a weapon to attack another inmate.

The County defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action sounding in negligent supervision by demonstrating that the assault by Batts upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable … . As for the cause of action sounding in negligent entrustment, the County defendants established, prima facie, that they did not possess special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to Batts that rendered his access to the pool cue unreasonably dangerous … . Dickson v Putnam, 2019 NY Slip Op 03025, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

, ,

RECORDS KEPT BY A VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE CORPORATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, Volunteer Ambulance, a not-for-profit corporation, was not a government agency, and therefore was not subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) (Public Officers Law 86). “The petitioner, an emergency medical technician, made requests under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6; hereinafter FOIL) for the production of certain records pertaining to the rejection of her application to be reinstated as a member of the Cortlandt Community Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. (hereinafter Volunteer Ambulance):”

Volunteer Ambulance was formed and incorporated without any participation or assistance of public officials in the Town. Neither the Town nor the District has the authority to select or appoint directors, officers, or members of Volunteer Ambulance. Volunteer Ambulance is not required to submit its budget to the Town or District for review, and neither the Town nor the District has authority to approve Volunteer Ambulance’s budget. Neither the Town nor the District has any authority to review or audit Volunteer Ambulance’s financial books and records. Volunteer Ambulance receives the majority of its funding from sources other than the payment it receives from the District pursuant to the contract, and purchases all of its equipment, supplies, and services from its own assets. Volunteer Ambulance receives no funding from the Town or District apart from the contract payment. Volunteer Ambulance is solely responsible for the maintenance and expenses related to its buildings. Volunteer Ambulance has the authority to hire staff, who are employees of Volunteer Ambulance, not of the District or Town, and it obtains its own workers’ compensation policy for coverage of its employees and members; these persons are not covered by the workers’ compensation policy maintained by the District or the Town for its employees or volunteers. Neither the District nor the Town has authority to review or approve contracts entered into by Volunteer Ambulance for professional or other services necessary for its operation.

Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Volunteer Ambulance is a “governmental entity performing a governmental . . . function” so as to render it an agency subject to the mandates of FOIL (Public Officers Law § 86[3] … . Matter of Outhouse v Cortlandt Community Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02881, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

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