You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF ON A SUBWAY FOR A TRANSIT VIOLATION, THE CONCURRENCE CALLED INTO QUESTION THE ‘TRANSIT DATABASE’ WHICH PROBABLY INCLUDES PERSONS WHOSE CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE SEALED AND DISMISSED, THE DATABASE DOES NOT PROVIDE A DISTINCT BASIS FOR ARREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a concurrence, determined that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff based on the transit offense of passing between two subway cars on a moving train. Because there was probable cause, the majority did not reach the issue of the fairness or constitutionality of a so-called “transit database” which encompasses so-called “transit recidivists.” The concurrence made it clear that plaintiff’s designation as a “transit recidivist” did not provide the police with a separate basis to arrest plaintiff:

From the concurrence:

It must be said that plaintiff’s designation as a transit recidivist did not give the officers a separate basis to arrest plaintiff … . The definition of “transit recidivist” at the time of plaintiff’s arrest encompassed not only persons convicted of crimes, but those with prior arrests in the transit system or prior felony arrests within New York City … . This overbroad classification subverted the presumption of innocence and likely violated state sealing laws. …

… [T]he database was likely contaminated by sealed arrests and summons histories and, as such, ran afoul of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law that require that the records of any criminal prosecution terminating in a person’s favor or by way of noncriminal conviction be sealed …  Statistics … indicate that in 2016 alone, over 50% of all criminal cases arraigned in New York City Criminal Court were terminated in favor of the accused, and accordingly entitled to sealing … . From 2007 through 2015 an average of 23% of all criminal summonses were dismissed for facial insufficiency … . Unless otherwise permitted by law, no one, including a private or public agency, can access a sealed record, except with a court order upon a showing that justice so requires.

The presence of arrest and summons data in the database also undercut the presumption of innocence insofar as persons were threatened with punishment on account of allegations that may have been unsubstantiated or dismissed.

…[T]his is not the first NYPD database to have included unlawfully broad data. NYPD previously recorded the name of every individual stopped and frisked as recently as 2010, until forced by a federal lawsuit to discontinue the practice.

Finally, there is little doubt that the “transit recidivist” database had a disproportionately negative effect on black and Hispanic communities, perpetuating this City’s history of overpolicing communities of color. Vargas v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00370, First Dept 1-22-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY HAD PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK AND RAILING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL INTO A GORGE, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff’s decedent fell from a paved trail into a gorge. There were questions of fact about whether the city had prior written notice of the broken sidewalk and railing:

… [P]laintiff produced a police investigation report concluding that decedent had fallen along a part of the trail with multiple defects, including broken pavement, a “bent/unsecured hand railing . . . and huge gap spaces in sidewalk edge adjacent to [the] cliff side edge.” Plaintiff also demonstrated that, by the time of the fall, the Department of Public Works had received numerous written complaints about the condition of the trail. General complaints and the subsequent efforts of department personnel to evaluate the condition of the trail did not “obviate the need for prior written notice” of the particular defects implicated in decedent’s fall … . That said, one of the written complaints was a January 2012 email forwarded to an Assistant Superintendent of Public Works that was, according to his testimony, “probably” shared with the Superintendent of Public Works, and attached to the email is a map with photographs that appear to reference the defects in the area where decedent fell. Van Wageningen v City of Ithaca, 2019 NY Slip Op 00343, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, , ,

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE VILLAGE STEMMING FROM A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IN THE WATER SUPPLY PROPERLY GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE VILLAGE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly granted petitioners’ application to file late notices of claim against the village stemming from a hazardous substance, PFOA, in the municipal water supply. Although petitioners did not have an adequate excuse for the delay, respondents had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim and were not prejudiced by the the delay:

… [I]t is evident that respondent was well aware of the PFOA contamination in its municipal water system, the likelihood of increased PFOA levels in the blood of its residents as a result of exposure to PFOA and the potential negative health consequences as a result thereof. On the record before us, therefore, respondent cannot plausibly claim that it had only a “general awareness” of the presence of PFOA in its municipal water system. Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court properly found that respondent had actual notice of all the essential facts underlying petitioners’ claims … . …

Further, there has been no demonstration of substantial prejudice to respondent as a result of petitioners’ delay in seeking to file late notices of claim … . Respondent has been aware of the subject PFOA contamination since at least October 2014, it was apprised of the potential negative health risks to its residents from PFOA exposure and, as a result of the blood testing program commenced by DOH, it learned of the elevated levels of PFOA in its residents — despite its efforts to downplay said results. Moreover, respondent alleges that it has located the source of the PFOA contamination and petitioners, as residents of respondent, remain available for any further investigation into whether respondent’s conduct was the proximate cause of their alleged injuries. In turn, other than the passage of time, respondent has offered no particularized evidence in opposition to establish that it suffered substantial prejudice … . Matter of Holbrook v Village of Hoosick Falls, 2019 NY Slip Op 00342, Third Dept 1-17-19

, ,

DEFAMATORY REMARKS MADE AT A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC MEETING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s defamation action properly survived a motion to dismiss. The defendant sought permission from the Village’s Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review to add an exterior stairway to her house. At the public meeting plaintiff, defendant’s neighbor, objected to the stairway. Then defendant made some remarks directly to plaintiff which, in essence, accused plaintiff of setting up a camera to view defendant’s daughter’s bedroom. The Second Department noted that statements at a public meeting before a municipal body are generally absolutely privileged. But here the statements had nothing to do with the substance of the meeting:

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se” … .

“Absolute privilege is based upon the personal position or status of the speaker and is limited to the speaker’s official participation in the processes of government” … . “The absolute privilege generally is reserved for communications made by individuals participating in a public function, such as executive, legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This protection is designed to ensure that such persons’ own personal interests—especially fear of a civil action, whether successful or otherwise—do not have an adverse impact upon the discharge of their public function” … .

Here, as a threshold matter, the challenged statements, considered in the context in which they were made, tended to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.

The challenged statements, which were made in the context of a contested application before a municipal body whose determination is subject to judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78 …, would ordinarily be subject to absolute privilege… . Nevertheless, the absolute privilege embraces only those statements that may possibly be or become material or pertinent to the matters before the Board, construed under an extremely liberal standard… . Upon our review of the papers and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, we discern “not one scintilla of evidence present upon which to base the possible pertinency of [the] defendant’s statement[s]”… . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged statements are not subject to an absolute privilege … . Gugliotta v Wilson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00261, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PARKING LOT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ATHLETIC CLUB, NOT A LEASE, THEREFORE THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE ATHLETIC CLUB TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPOSED CERTAIN MAINTENANCE DUTIES ON THE CITY AS WELL, THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city did not demonstrate that it had relinquished control over the parking lot where plaintiff allegedly fell into an access pit. The access pit was exposed because a snow removal contractor pushed the cover off when plowing snow. The city had a license agreement with an athletic club, Fitmar, which required Fitmar to maintain the parking lot. Fitmar had hired the snow removal contractor. The city argued it was an out of possession landlord and the parking lot was solely Fitmar’s responsibility. The Second Department held that the parking lot was subject to a license agreement, not a lease, and therefore the out of possession landlord doctrine did not apply. The Second Department went on to find that the terms of the license agreement did not demonstrate as a matter of law that the city had relinquished control over the maintenance of the parking lot:

… [T]he license agreement granted Fitmar a license to use the premises, and not a leasehold interest … . Thus, the standard applied to out-of-possession landlords is inapplicable here … . Rather, the City, “as landowner, remains in presumptive control over its property and subject to the attendant obligations of ownership until it is found that control was relinquished” … .

The City failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it relinquished control of the premises such that it owed no duty to the plaintiff to remedy the allegedly defective condition. While the license agreement assigned responsibility for maintenance of the premises, and specifically of the parking lot, to Fitmar, it vested the City with ultimate approval authority over Fitmar’s operating procedures. The City had unfettered access to the premises and could sponsor or promote its own special events at the premises. The agreement required a yearly inspection of the premises by the City to determine the extent of any repairs to be performed by Fitmar, and the City was permitted to inspect the premises at any time and direct Fitmar to undertake repairs. The City could maintain field personnel at the premises to observe the means and methods of anticipated construction work by Fitmar, and also reserved the right for the City to perform construction or maintenance work at the premises at any time. Fitmar’s former general manager testified at his deposition that the City conducted regular inspections of the premises, and that representatives of the Parks Department would often show up unannounced to conduct inspections. Agbosasa v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00250, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S WHISTEBLOWER ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ALLEGING THE DISTRICT TOOK RETALIATORY ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF BECAUSE OF ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF MADE AGAINST ANOTHER DISTRICT EMPLOYEE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Civil Service Law 75-b action alleging disciplinary action against him was taken in retaliation for his reporting certain allegations about another school district employee should not have been dismissed. Defendant school district notified plaintiff, the district’s head bus driver, he was charged with a conflict of interest in violation of General Business Law 800 the day after plaintiff had made the allegations against the employee in front of the Board of Education.  Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s whistleblower action by finding the General Municipal Law 800 conflict of interest charge, not plaintiff’s allegations against the employee, constituted the basis for the district’s disciplinary action against plaintiff:

Supreme Court … erred in the substantive application of Civil Service Law § 75-b relative to defendants’ contention that an independent basis existed for placing plaintiff on administrative leave. To assert a whistleblower claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b, plaintiff must allege, “(1) an adverse personnel action; (2) disclosure of information to a governmental body (a) regarding a violation of a law, rule, or regulation that endangers public health or safety, or (b) which [the plaintiff] reasonably believes to be true and which [he or] she reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action; and (3) a causal connection between the disclosure and the adverse personnel action”… . The element of causation requires “that ‘but for’ the protected activity, the adverse personnel action by the public employer would not have occurred”… . Here, the court found that the purported General Municipal Law violation sufficed as a separate and independent basis for the adverse action and dismissed plaintiff’s claim. However, even assuming that the General Municipal Law violation is ultimately demonstrated, the trial court must make “a separate determination regarding the employer’s motivation” to ensure against pretextual dismissals and “shield employees from being retaliated against by an employer’s selective application of theoretically neutral rules” … . Lilley v Greene Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00019, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, NOT THE FIRE DISTRICT WHICH WAS THE PROPER PARTY, PLAINTIFF NEVER SERVED A NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE DISTRICT, THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action against the Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Company was properly dismissed and the proper party, the Coeymans Hollow Fire District #3, could not be sued because it was never served with a notice of claim. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when members of the Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Company evacuated her from her house during a fire call:

A volunteer fire company, such as defendant, “shall be under the control of the . . . fire district . . . having, by law, control over the prevention or extinguishment of fires therein” (N-PCL 1402 [e] [1]). Indeed, the Fire District was responsible for preventing and extinguishing fires within its jurisdiction and trained and supervised defendant’s members. Furthermore, when defendant’s members responded to the fire at [plaintiff’s] house, they acted under the direction of the Chief of the Fire District. Because defendant and the Fire District are separate entities and defendant does not exert control over its members, defendant cannot be held liable for the alleged negligence of its members … . …

We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant and the Fire District are so inextricably intertwined that timely service of the notice of claim upon defendant equates to timely service upon the Fire District. Furthermore, although defendant conducted an examination of [plaintiff] under General Municipal Law § 50-h, equitable estoppel does not preclude any claim that Roberts failed to serve the notice of claim upon the proper party … . We also note that, even though defendant was not obligated to inform Roberts that she failed to name the proper party … , defendant did so as an affirmative defense in its answer.

Plaintiff additionally contends that General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c) permits deeming the notice of claim served upon defendant as being timely served upon the Fire District. We disagree. This savings provision is “limited in scope to defects in the manner of serving the notice of claim on the correct public entity” … . That said, plaintiff fails to identify, nor does the record disclose, any infirmities in the service of the notice of claim. More critically, before any defects in service can be overlooked, service on the proper party must be accomplished in the first instance … . Roberts v Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 00006, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

, , ,

HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERMANENT STAY OF EVICTION WAS A PROPER ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED TENANTS PURSUANT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Term, First Department, ruled that a hearing should be held to determine whether eviction proceedings should be permanently stayed. A guardian (GAL) had been appointed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the disabled tenants who had not complied with stipulations for fumigation of the apartment to rid it of bed bugs. With the GAL’s help the apartment was eventually fumigated. Under the Fair Housing Act the tenants were entitled to accommodations for their disabilities. A hearing was required to determine whether a permanent stay of eviction was an appropriate accommodation:

Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as amended, it is unlawful to discriminate in housing practices on the basis of a “handicap” (42 USC § 3604[f][2][A]). Handicap is very broadly defined, and a person is considered handicapped and thereby protected under the FHA if he or she: 1. Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or 2. Has a record of such impairment, or 3. Is regarded as having such an impairment.

No specific diagnosis is necessary for a person to be “handicapped” and protected under the statute. In fact, the determination may even be based upon the observations of a lay person … . The appointment of an article 81 guardian for tenants sufficiently establishes that these tenants are “handicapped” within the meaning of the FHA, leading us to consider whether they are entitled to a reasonable accommodation. What is “reasonable” varies from case to case, because it is necessarily fact-specific  … . The overarching guiding factor, however, is that a landlord is obligated to provide a tenant with a reasonable accommodation if necessary for the tenant to keep his or her apartment. The ” refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the handicapped individual] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling'” is a discriminatory practice… . A landlord does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it puts other tenants at risk, but should consider whether such risks can be minimized … . Matter of Prospect Union Assoc. v DeJesus, 2018 NY Slip Op 09016, First Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

ONCE THE CITY TAX LIENS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED PAYMENT TO THE CITY, INSTEAD OF THE LIENHOLDER, IS NOT APPLIED TO THE DEBT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tax and sewer charges paid to the city by defendant after defendant had been notified that the tax liens had been assigned could not be applied to the debt:

Plaintiffs are the lawful assignees of certain City of New York water and sewer tax liens against property owned by defendant. The City complied fully with the provisions of Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-320, which requires, inter alia, that four notices of the sale of the liens be sent to the property owner at specified intervals before the sale and that another notice be sent 30 days after the sale … . The City’s four pre-sale notices informed defendant of the debt, of the impending sale, and of defendant’s obligation to pay the City, if at all, by August 1, 2011. The notices also informed defendant that, after the sale, it should make payment arrangements with the new lienholder’s representative.

Defendant did not pay the amounts owed by August 1, 2011. On the day after the tax liens were assigned to plaintiffs, defendant made payments to the City. The payments were not credited against defendant’s debt, because, once the assignment had taken place, payments had to be made to plaintiffs … .

Contrary to defendant’s argument, there is no tension between the Administrative Code’s provisions for tax liens and tax sales and the law generally governing payments of an assigned debt. Once a debtor has notice that the debt has been assigned, or has been put “on inquiry” as to an assignment of the debt, payments to the assignor (the original creditor) are not applied to the debt … . NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v 70 Orchard LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 09004, First Dept 12-27-18

 

, , ,

ARBITRATOR DID NOT EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY IN FINDING THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REQUIRED DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING NOTICE, BEFORE AN EMPLOYEE COULD BE TERMINATED FOR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT, ARBITRATOR’S AWARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration award in this employment matter should have been confirmed. The grievant was employed by the respondent town as a school crossing guard. Without notice, the town’s chief of police called the grievant to his office and fired her for alleged misconduct. The arbitrator determined the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required limited due process protections, including notice, and found termination of the grievant was without just cause:

“[A]n arbitrator exceed[s] his [or her] power’ under the meaning of the statute where his [or her] award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power’ “… .

“Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact’ ” … . “An arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be” … . The court lacks the power to review the legal merits of the award, or to substitute its own judgment for that of the arbitrator, “simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one” … . …

The “for cause” language contained in the management rights provision expressly circumscribed respondent’s right to discipline or discharge the grievant. The arbitrator interpreted that language, consistent with arbitral precedent, as incorporating a just cause standard that encompasses a right to due process. We thus conclude that “the arbitrator merely interpreted and applied the provisions of the CBA, as [he] had the authority to do” … . Matter of Town of Greece Guardians’ Club, Local 1170 (Town of Greece), 2018 NY Slip Op 08775, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

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