You are here: / Municipal Law
,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER’S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver and municipality's motions for summary judgment in this intersection accident case should not have been granted. Apparently plaintiff made a right turn at an intersection into the path of defendant driver, Ayers. According to Ayers, plaintiff did not stop at the stop sign before turning. Plaintiff alleged foliage obscured the stop sign:

The driver defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Ayers contributed to the happening of the accident. In particular, Ayers testified at his deposition that he was traveling 40 miles per hour as he approached the intersection, and that although nothing obstructed his view of the intersection, he did not see the plaintiff's vehicle until he was one car length from the intersection. Further, Ayers could not say whether he took any evasive action to avoid the collision. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Ayers used reasonable care to avoid the accident … ….

Contrary to the Town's contention, there is evidence in the record that the foliage which allegedly obscured the stop sign was located within the right-of-way of a Town road. …

The Town further failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether any such obstruction of the stop sign was a proximate cause of the accident. “Such proximate cause may be found only where it is shown that it was the very [obstruction] of the stop sign . . . which rendered the driver[ ] unaware of the need to stop before proceeding across the intersection'”… . Where the driver “had all the warning, all the notice of danger, that a stop sign would have afforded,” there is no basis for finding that the obstruction of a sign caused the driver “to do anything other than [he or] she would have done had it been present” … .

The Town failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that despite the obstructed stop sign, the plaintiff, who was lost in an unfamiliar area, “had all the warning, all the notice of danger, that a stop sign would have afforded”… . In particular, the Town presented no definitive evidence of either the plaintiff's knowledge of the need to stop at the intersection, or conditions necessitating that she bring her vehicle to a complete stop prior to entering the intersection. Viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolving all reasonable inferences in her favor … , the Town failed to eliminate issues of fact as to whether the obstruction of the stop sign contributed, to some degree, to the happening of the accident. Rivera v Town of Wappinger, 2018 NY Slip Op 05953, Second Dept 8-29-18

NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER'S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER'S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER'S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , , , ,

THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, over a partial dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) had standing to challenge a Local Law which placed a two-year moratorium on the conversion of hotels to condominiums or other residential uses. The court further determined that the REBNY did not have standing to challenge the statute under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The REBNY alleged that 29 of its members owned hotels subject to the law:

Owners of real property who are subjected to a new zoning classification or other use restriction are “presumptively affected by the change” and “therefore technically have standing” to assert claims … .

Accepted as true for purposes of these CPLR 3211 motions, REBNY’s assertion that its member hotel owners are currently negatively affected by the moratorium is sufficient to establish standing in the plenary action and in the article 78 proceeding under ULURP [the City Charter’s Uniform Land Use Review Process] … . * * *

REBNY’s claimed environmental harm is nothing more than economic harm (i.e., the reduction in property values, the loss of business opportunities and the added expense of applying for a waiver under Local Law 50). REBNY’s own filings reflect that the organization’s constitution mentions the environment only once, and only insofar as the environment relates to economic impact. The affidavit by REBNY’s president does not salvage REBNY’s standing argument. The president claims that “SEQRA is a concern” for all REBNY members in “proximity” to the hotels due to potential impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, waste disposal and demand for public services. This argument … fails to establish injury separate and apart from injury to the general public … . Matter of Real Estate Bd. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05906, First Dept 8-23-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STANDING, THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT)).STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/HOTELS  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))

,

AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an action for false arrest and related causes of action, all of which were dismissed, noted that an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot, as a matter of public policy, be brought against a municipality:

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress with respect to the City, as “public policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity”… . Moreover, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against [the arresting officer] by establishing that [the officer]i did not engage in extreme or outrageous conduct … . Ball v Miller, 2018 NY Slip Op 05813, Second Dept 8-22-18

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (MUNICIPAL LAW, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))

,

CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist's suit against the city stemming from injury after running over a pothole should have been dismissed. The defendants established the city did not have prior written notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendants established the City's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating through, inter alia, DOT records, that the City did not have prior written notice of the condition alleged as required by the Administrative Code … and that the City did not affirmatively create the condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City received prior written notice of the alleged condition. Although the plaintiff relied upon a map submitted by the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation which had a straight line, indicating “[r]aised or uneven portion of sidewalk,” in the area where the plaintiff's accident occurred, the map did not give the City prior written notice of the pothole condition alleged by the plaintiff … . The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City created the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. Allen v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05811, Second Dept 8-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLISTS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/POTHOLES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN THOUGH A PRIOR APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ABANDONED INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWN, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT IN BICYCLE LANE, NO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had, in effect, granted plaintiff's motion for reargument of his opposition to the city's motion for summary judgment and therefore the related order was appealable. The Second Department further determined it would hear the appeal, even though plaintiff's prior appeal of the original order had been abandoned rather than withdrawn. Plaintiff, a bicyclist, alleged he had been injured by a defect in the bicycle lane. The city demonstrated it did not have prior written notice of the defect. The Second Department rejected plaintiff's argument that the “special use” exception to the prior written notice requirement applied because the city did not derive a special benefit from the bicycle lanes unrelated to the public use:

“Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a dangerous roadway condition unless it has received prior written notice of the dangerous condition, or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies” … . “Where the City establishes that it lacked prior written notice under [Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201], the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule—that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality”… . The special use exception is reserved for situations where a municipality derives a special benefit from the property unrelated to the public use … .

It is undisputed that the City demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect. It is further undisputed that the record contains no evidence that the City created the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff's accident. The plaintiff contends that this case falls within the special use exception because bicycle lanes provide a special benefit to the City by “enhancing its status” and “attracting residents and tourists.” However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the implementation of bicycle lanes on City roadways bestowed a special benefit upon the City unrelated to the public use or that it constituted a special use of the roadways … . Budoff v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05817, Second Dept 8-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN THOUGH A PRIOR APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ABANDONED INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWN, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT IN BICYCLE LANE, NO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN THOUGH A PRIOR APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ABANDONED INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWN, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT IN BICYCLE LANE, NO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN THOUGH A PRIOR APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ABANDONED INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWN, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT IN BICYCLE LANE, NO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS  (ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN THOUGH A PRIOR APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ABANDONED INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWN, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT IN BICYCLE LANE, NO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION (ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN THOUGH A PRIOR APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ABANDONED INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWN, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT IN BICYCLE LANE, NO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

LANDLORDS PROPERLY CALCULATED THE RENT OVERCHARGE PURSUANT TO THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION CODE BY CHOOSING A BASE RENT DATE FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DATE DEEMED TO BE WHEN THE OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED HAD THE LAW BEEN CLEAR AT THE TIME (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the defendants-landlords had properly calculated a rent overcharge by going back four years from a date deemed to be when the tenants would have filed a rent overcharge complaint (none had been filed because the relevant law was unclear at the time):

Defendants chose May 1, 2010 as the date on which plaintiffs would be deemed to have filed a claim for overcharges, in the absence of any such claim having been filed, and then used these 2526.1(a) standards to fix the base date for determining the overcharge as May 1, 2006, the date four years before they undertook their review. Defendants then reduced plaintiffs' rent and forwarded payment to them for the overcharges so reflected. In June 2010 defendants filed registrations for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 in accordance with these recalculations. Raden v W 7879, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05799, First Dept 8-16-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (MUNICIPAL LAW, LANDLORDS PROPERLY CALCULATED THE RENT OVERCHARGE PURSUANT TO THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION CODE BY CHOOSING A BASE RENT DATE FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DATE DEEMED TO BE WHEN THE OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED HAD THE LAW BEEN CLEAR AT THE TIME (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORDS PROPERLY CALCULATED THE RENT OVERCHARGE PURSUANT TO THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION CODE BY CHOOSING A BASE RENT DATE FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DATE DEEMED TO BE WHEN THE OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED HAD THE LAW BEEN CLEAR AT THE TIME (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LANDLORD-TENANT, MUNICIPAL LAW, LANDLORDS PROPERLY CALCULATED THE RENT OVERCHARGE PURSUANT TO THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION CODE BY CHOOSING A BASE RENT DATE FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DATE DEEMED TO BE WHEN THE OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED HAD THE LAW BEEN CLEAR AT THE TIME (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 213-a (LANDLORD-TENANT, MUNICIPAL LAW, LANDLORDS PROPERLY CALCULATED THE RENT OVERCHARGE PURSUANT TO THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION CODE BY CHOOSING A BASE RENT DATE FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DATE DEEMED TO BE WHEN THE OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED HAD THE LAW BEEN CLEAR AT THE TIME (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZATION LAW  (LANDLORD-TENANT, MUNICIPAL LAW, LANDLORDS PROPERLY CALCULATED THE RENT OVERCHARGE PURSUANT TO THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION CODE BY CHOOSING A BASE RENT DATE FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DATE DEEMED TO BE WHEN THE OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED HAD THE LAW BEEN CLEAR AT THE TIME (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD’S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the NYC Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the DHCR erred when it looked back more than for years from the date of the rent overcharge complaint to determine the base rent for calculating the amount of the overcharge. There was no dispute that the landlord was receiving J-51 tax benefits and was therefore subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), which had a four-year statute of limitations:

The primary question presented in this appeal is how to determine the proper rent on the base date. * * *

… [I]n the absence of evidence of fraud, this Court has declined to look back more than four years before the filing of the overcharge complaint to set the base date rent … .

In the case at bar, DHCR was not arbitrary and capricious in finding that landlord did not engage in a fraudulent scheme to evade the Rent Stabilization Law. As a consequence, DHCR was prohibited from looking at the unit's rental history before November 2, 2005 [four years before the overcharge complaint]. …

[The legislature] not only set a four-year limitations period, but it also explicitly barred any “examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of a complaint” (RSL § 26-516[a][2]). The Court of Appeals has found that the purpose of the four-year limitations period is “to alleviate the burden on honest landlords to retain rent records indefinitely” … . The Court of Appeals has made what we have called a “limited exception” to the four-year limitations period in cases where landlords act fraudulently … . To expand this exception to landlords who have not engaged in fraud would create a much broader exception that would appear to negate the temporal limits contained in the Rent Stabilization Law and the CPLR. Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 05797, First Dept 8-16-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (MUNICIPAL LAW, WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD'S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD'S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZATION LAW  (LANDLORD-TENANT, WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD'S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT))/RENT OVERCHARGE  (MUNICIPAL LAW, WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD'S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LANDLORD-TENANT, WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD'S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 213-a (MUNICIPAL LAW, LANDLORD-TENANT, WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD'S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff's actions stemming from exposure to asbestos, including an action against the county alleging fraudulent concealment of the presence of asbestos where plaintiff worked, were time barred:

Generally, an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances must be commenced within three years of the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier (see CPLR 214-c[2] …). “For purposes of CPLR 214-c, discovery occurs when, based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based'” … . Where, as here, a claim is asserted against a municipality, the statute of limitations as to the claim against the municipality is 1 year and 90 days and is measured from the date of discovery of the injury or from the date when, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the injury should have been discovered, whichever is earlier … . O'Brien v County of Nassau, 2018 NY Slip Op 05774, Second Dept 8-15-18

TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/ASBESTOS (ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TOXIC TORTS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, TOXIC TORTS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/(STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, TOXIC TORTS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (ASBESTOS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department determined the petition to file a late notice of claim in this false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution action was properly denied. The police report association with petitioner's arrest did not provide notice of the claims to the city and that allegation that petitioner's assigned counsel did not timely inform him of the notice of claim requirement was not an adequate excuse:

… [T]he involvement of a City police officer in arresting the petitioner did not, without more, establish that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner's claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter… . In addition, the contents of the arrest report and the certificate of disposition, submitted by the petitioner in support of his application, were insufficient to impute actual knowledge to the City of the facts underlying his claims … . Further, the petitioner failed to establish that the delay in serving a notice of claim and seeking leave to serve such notice would not substantially prejudice the City in maintaining its defense on the merits with respect to those claims … . Matter of Islam v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05763, Second Dept 8-15-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT  (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that the NYC Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to sua sponte vacate a nonfinal order under the Rent Stabilization Code and DHCR correctly found that petitioner 333 East 49th Partnership, LP (the owner) was responsible for refunding the overcharge collected by the prime tenant, on the grounds that the prime tenant created an illusory tenancy. The opinion is complex and comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Section 2529.9 of the Rent Stabilization Code * * * authorizes DHCR to reopen, sua sponte, a proceeding at any time upon a finding of irregularity of vital matters, fraud or illegality, upon notice to the parties … . * * *

The rent stabilization laws [RSL] are designed “to prevent exactions of unjust, unreasonable and oppressive rents and rental agreements and to forestall profiteering, speculation and other disruptive practices … . The Rent Stabilization Code expressly provides that the legal regulated rents and other requirements “shall not be evaded, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the renting or leasing or the transfer of a lease for housing accommodations” … .

An illusory tenancy exists when the prime tenant rents an apartment for the sole purpose of re-leasing it, at a profit, or otherwise subverts the protections of the RSL … .

DHCR’s finding that the owner may be held accountable for the overcharge is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious. DHCR is not restricted, as the owner argues, to only take into account whether the owner overcharged the subtenant and actually collected rent in excess of the lawful stabilized rent. Rather, DHCR may consider that the owner “derived substantial benefits from the scheme and was aware of the nature of [the prime tenant’s] activities” … . * * *

Rent Stabilization Code 2526.1(a)(1) imposes treble damages upon owners who “have collected any rent . . . in excess of the legal regulated rent” … . However, as noted above, RSL 26-511(c)(12)(e) merely states that “where a tenant violates the provisions of subparagraph (a)” with regard to overcharging a subtenant, “the subtenant shall be entitled to damages of three times the overcharge” … . DHCR’s interpretation of these statutes to impose treble damages upon the owner, under these circumstances, is rational and thus, entitled to deference … .  Matter of 333 E. 49th Partnership, LP v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 05735, First Dept 8-9-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (RENT STABILIZATION LAW, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, RENT STABILIZATION LAW, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZATION LAW (NYC, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))/ILLUSORY TENANT (RENT STABILIZATION LAW, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))

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