You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

THE NEW YORK CITY CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT A MAN IN A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormick, determined the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) was not entitled to unseal the record of a criminal action which had resulted in the acquittal of an off-duty police officer (the defendant) who shot and killed a man during a road rage incident:

At his criminal trial, the defendant presented a justification defense … [and] the jury acquitted him of all charges. As a result, the records pertaining to the defendant’s arrest and criminal prosecution were sealed (see CPL 160.50). * * *

The CCRB charged the defendant with three counts of intentionally using force without police necessity, rising to the level of assault in the second degree, in violation of the NYPD’s Patrol Guide. * * *

… [T]he CCRB moved herein to unseal the record of this criminal action … in order to conduct its disciplinary trial … . * * *

Although the New York City Charter authorizes the CCRB to compel the attendance of witnesses and to require the production of such records and other materials as are necessary for its investigations of police misconduct, and further requires the NYPD, inter alia, to provide records and other materials that are necessary for the CCRB’s investigations, the Charter specifically exempts from such disclosure “such records or materials that cannot be disclosed by law” (NY City Charter § 440[d][1]). As such, it cannot be said that the CCRB has been given a specific grant of power that would allow it to access the sealed records … . People v Isaacs, 2025 NY Slip Op 01818, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: The NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board cannon unseal the record of the criminal prosecution of a police officer which resulted in an acquittal.

 

, ,

THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION TO AMEND PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS TO PERMANENTLY EXEMPT AN APARTMENT FROM RENT STABILIZATION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR); ONLY MINISTERIAL AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, SUCH AS CLERICAL ERRORS AND MISSPELLINGS, ARE ALLOWED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) properly rejected petitioner-landlord’s application to amend two prior annual registration statements to permanently exempt an apartment from rent stabilization. The ability to amend the annual registration statements extends only to ministerial issues such as clerical errors, misspellings, incorrect lease terms, etc.:

DHCR’s chosen limiting principle—that amendments may correct only “ministerial” issues—does not permit amendments that seek to remove a housing accommodation’s rent-stabilized status.  The application of that rule to this case was clearly rational. Matter of LL 410 E. 78th St. LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01672, CtApp 3-20-25

 

, , ,

TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE FOUR-YEAR LOOKBACK FOR A “FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO INFLATE RENTS” ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ALLEGE RELIANCE ON A FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION; IT IS ENOUGH TO ALLEGE SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF FRAUD OR A COLORABLE CLAIM OF FRAUD (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined that to sufficiently allege the applicability of the fraud exception to the four-year statute of limitations (“lookback” period) in a “fraudulent scheme to inflate rents” action, a plaintiff need not allege satisfaction of each element of common-law fraud (including reliance), rather the plaintiff need only allege “sufficient indicia” of fraud:

… [T]he fraud exception serves a far different purpose than an allegation of common law fraud. The fraud exception, applicable only to an overcharge claim, simply allows for review of the rental history outside the four-year lookback period and then … “solely to ascertain whether fraud occurred—not to furnish evidence for calculation of the base date rent or permit recovery for years of overcharges barred by the statute of limitations” … . The exception operates to protect not only current tenants, who may or may not have relied on a fraudulent representation, but future tenants and the overall rent regulatory system. Requiring that a tenant show reliance on a landlord’s fraudulent representation would exempt an “unscrupulous landlord in collusion with a tenant” from the consequences of engaging in a scheme to evade the law’s protection … . Given the narrow purpose and scope of the fraud exception, there is no basis for imposing the pleading requirements of a common law fraud claim. Instead, we require plaintiffs to put forth “sufficient indicia of fraud” or a “colorable claim” of a fraudulent scheme but do not impose a burden to establish each element of a common law fraud claim.

… [T]o invoke the fraud exception, a plaintiff must allege sufficient indicia of fraud, or a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme to evade the protections of the rent stabilization laws, to withstand a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Such allegations must include more than an assertion that a tenant was overcharged—a mere allegation of a high rent increase is insufficient for the fraud exception to apply … We address only the reliance issue here. On remittal the Appellate Division should apply our established standard—assessing whether plaintiffs’ complaint alleges sufficient indicia of fraud or a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme “to remove tenants’ apartment from the protections of rent stabilization” … . Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01669, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what the complaint must allege to invoke the fraud exception to the four-year lookback period for a “fraudulent scheme to inflate rents” action.

 

, ,

NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW 11, WHICH ALLOWS NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE, VIOLATES THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined New York City Local Law 11, which allowed non-citizens to vote, violates the New York Constitution:

Local Law 11 allows “municipal voters” to vote in New York City elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President and City Council Member (New York City Charter §§ 1057-aa, 1057-bb). The law defines a municipal voter as “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” and who: (1) “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”; (2) “is a resident of New York city and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election”; and (3) “meets all qualifications for registering or preregistering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or preregistered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter” … . * * *

Whatever the future may bring, the New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens. Fossella v Adams, 2025 NY Slip Op 01668, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The NYS Constitution restricts the right to vote to citizens.

 

, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets had jurisdiction over the matter and had the authority to determine a farm located in the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve (Central Pine Barrens) was not running a commercial mulching operation in violation of the Code of the Town of Brookhaven:

Respondent Delea Sod Farms, Inc. (hereinafter Delea Farms) operates a farm in an agricultural district in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, where it primarily produces sod for sale that is used at, among other places, Yankee Stadium. Mulch and compost are stored and sold at the farm as well. The farm also lies within the Central Pine Barrens area as defined by the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act (ECL 57-0101 et seq. [hereinafter the Pine Barrens Act]), the Pine Barrens being an environmentally sensitive area of Long Island that contains an aquifer from which many locals obtain drinking water and is subject to “laws and policies . . . at all government levels to protect [it] from unbridled development” (… see also ECL 57-0107 [10]). Petitioner sued Delea Farms in March 2020 to enjoin it from running what was, in petitioner’s view, a commercial mulching operation that allegedly ran afoul of the farmland bill of rights and zoning regulations contained in the Code of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Town Code) as well as the terms of a conditional discharge entered following a 2017 guilty plea by Delea Farms in a code enforcement matter. Delea Farms reacted by requesting an informal opinion from respondent Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets as to whether its storage and sale of compost and mulch on the farm was “agricultural in nature” within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law § 308 (4). The Commissioner issued an opinion in July 2020 that the storage and sale of mulch and compost was an incidental agricultural use to the production and sale of sod at the farm. * * *

The Commissioner determined that Delea Farms was primarily operating the farm for sod production and harvesting, that it was not manufacturing or processing mulch at the farm and that the mulch and compost at the farm was either used on the farm itself or sold to customers who needed it to install the sod and nursery stock that was the farm’s actual focus. Matter of Town of Brookhaven v Ball, 2025 NY Slip Op 01686, Third Dept 3-20-25

 

, ,

THE TREBLE DAMAGES PROVISION IN RPAPL 861 FOR THE IMPROPER TRIMMING OR REMOVAL OF TREES FROM ANOTHER’S PROPERTY IS PUNITIVE IN NATURE; HERE THE TOWN TRIMMED AND REMOVED TREES FROM PLAINTIFF’S LAND; BECAUSE A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE ASSESSED PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THE TREBLE DAMAGES AWARD WAS REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the treble damages provision in RPAPL 861 is punitive in nature and therefore cannot be imposed upon a municipality. Here the town removed and trimmed trees along a roadway. Plaintiff, the owner of the land abutting the road, sued and was awarded treble damages. The Appellate Division had concluded the treble damages provision was compensatory, not punitive:

RPAPL 861 provides that “[i]f any person, without the consent of the owner thereof, cuts, removes, injures or destroys . . . tree[s] or timber on the land of another . . . an action may be maintained against such person for treble the stumpage value of the tree or timber or two hundred fifty dollars per tree, or both and for any permanent and substantial damage caused to the land or the improvements thereon . . . .” … .

* * * Treble damages are the default measure for any recovery, but the statute also provides that “if the defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence, that when the defendant committed the violation, he or she had cause to believe the land was his or her own, or that he or she had an easement or right of way across such land which permitted such action, or he or she had a legal right to harvest such land, then he or she shall be liable for the stumpage value or two hundred fifty dollars per tree, or both . . . .” …

In other words, the defendant’s good faith “does not insulate that person from the imposition of statutory damages, but merely saves him or her from having to pay the plaintiff treble damages” .. . * * *

The “good faith” provision in RPAPL 861 demonstrates the punitive nature of the treble damages available under the statute. Matter of Rosbaugh v Town of Lodi, 2025 NY Slip Op 01406, CtApp 3-13-25

Practice Point: Here the statute allowed treble damages for the removal of trees only if the removal was not in good faith. Therefore the treble damages provision was punitive in nature. Punitive damages cannot be assessed against a municipality, here the town which removed the trees.​

 

, ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EFFECTS OF THE EMISSION OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS [HAPS] FROM THE PROPOSED “BIOSOLIDS REMEDIATION AND FERTILIZER PROCESSING FACILITY;” THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS THEREFORE DEEMED ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Article 78 petition contesting the town planning board’s “negative declaration” regarding a proposed “biosolids remediation and fertilizer processing facility.” The record did not demonstrate that the planning board took the required “hard look” at the effects of the emissions from the facility. Instead the board relied on proposed mitigation measures overseen by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC):

… [T]he planning board failed to take a hard look at the project’s potential adverse impacts on air, resulting in an arbitrary and capricious negative declaration (see CPLR 7803 [3]). The voluminous record includes the planning board’s meeting minutes, recordings and other documents, all of which are devoid of evidence that the planning board “thoroughly analyze[d]” the project’s generation of 12.7 tons of designated HAPs [hazardous air pollutants] before it issued a negative declaration … . Instead, the planning board appears to have determined that, because the project’s HAP emissions were “mitigated” to fall below the 25-ton threshold for a major source, then emissions at 50% of that rate were also mitigated … . Not only is this conclusion “without sound basis in reason” — it is not clear why the planning board decided that mitigating the impact of 25 tons of HAPs would do the same for 12.7 tons of HAPs — but also “without . . . regard to the facts,” as the record confirms that the planning board never considered the potential impacts of the project’s HAP emissions at al … . * * *

… [T]he planning board’s unexplained deference to DEC’s permitting standards and periodic monitoring with respect to the impacts of the project’s emissions on air quality does not satisfy its SEQRA obligations, resulting in an arbitrary and capricious negative declaration (see CPLR 7803 [3] …). Matter of Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v Town of Moreau Planning Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 01020, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: The lead agency for a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) declaration cannot avoid a “hard look” at the potential hazardous air pollutants (HAPS} which will be produced by a proposed facility by simply deferring to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) permitting and monitoring of the facility.

 

, , , ,

A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined a municipality owes a child placed in foster care a special duty, such that the municipality, although performing a governmental function, can be liable for negligent placement of a child:

Today we hold that municipalities owe a duty of care to the children the municipalities place in foster homes because the municipalities have assumed custody of those children. As a result, we reverse the decision of the Appellate Division.

Plaintiff, formerly a child in foster care, commenced this action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g) against defendant Cayuga County and “Does 1-10,” who she alleged were “persons or entities with responsibilities for [p]laintiff’s safety, supervision and/or placement in foster care.” According to the complaint, the County placed plaintiff in foster care in 1974, when she was three months old. While in the foster home selected by the County, plaintiff allegedly suffered horrific abuse. Plaintiff alleged that her foster parent sexually abused her over the course of approximately seven years, beginning when she was 18 months old and continuing until she was eight years old. The foster parent allegedly coerced plaintiff’s compliance with the sexual abuse by inflicting severe physical abuse, resulting in plaintiff sustaining broken bones and a head wound. * * *

By assuming legal custody over the foster child, the applicable government official steps in as the sole legal authority responsible for determining who has daily control over the child’s life … . We thus hold that a municipality owes a duty to a foster child over whom it has assumed legal custody to guard the child from “foreseeable risks of harm” arising from the child’s placement with the municipality’s choice of foster parent … . Weisbrod-Moore v Cayuga County, 2025 NY Slip Op 00903, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: A municipality generally is not liable for injury resulting from the exercise of a governmental function absent a special duty owed to the injured party. Resolving a split of authority, here the Court of Appeals held a municipality owes a special duty to a child it places in foster care.

 

, , , ,

THE 2024 AMENDMENTS WHICH SET A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING CLAIMS ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE A RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT APPLY TO CLAIMS PENDING AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT AND ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Connolly, determined the 2024 amendments (the “chapter amendments”), which set forth a standard for determining claims alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment, applied retroactively to claims pending when the amendments were enacted and are constitutional:

First, we must determine whether so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment unit applies to actions such as this one, which were commenced before the effective date of the chapter amendments but were pending before a court on the effective date. We hold that it does.

Next, we must determine whether the defendant established that so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment unit is unconstitutional on its face or whether it would be unconstitutional to apply that portion of the chapter amendments to this action. We hold that the defendant did not establish that the relevant portion of the chapter amendments is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied in this action.

Finally, applying the standard set forth in the chapter amendments, we must determine whether the plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartment units such that the formula set forth in Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §§ 2522.6(b)(3) and 2526.1(g) (hereinafter the default formula) should be used to calculate the legal regulated rent and any rent overcharges. We hold that the plaintiffs did not meet their prima facie burden. Gomes v Vermyck, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-13-25

 

,

NYPD PROPERLY REQUIRED TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ITS USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDING FACIAL RECOGNITION, IRIS RECOGNITION AND MOBILE X-RAY TECHNOLOGIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, rejected the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD’s) argument that the FOIL request for documents relating to the NYPD’s use of surveillance technologies (such as facial recognition, iris recognition and mobile x-ray technology) was unduly burdensome:

An overarching problem with the NYPD’s evidence of burdensomeness, which consisted entirely of [NYPD attorney] Murtagh’s testimony, is that it is nonspecific. To begin, Murtagh did not set forth the number of SPEX [special expense purchase] Contracts that are encompassed by the request. He also did not set out an approximate number of pages that contain potentially exempt information. * * *

The NYPD’s assertion of the burdensomeness exemption also rests on the necessity of reviewing approximately 165,000 pages of hard-copy documents. While this is a considerable task, it is eased by Supreme Court’s determination that the production could go forward quarterly, on a rolling basis. Additionally, the review is facilitated by the fact that the relevant documents are all in one place, and there is no need to search the NYPD’s precincts and departments. While Murtagh stated that only he and one colleague were qualified to review this universe of documents, he failed to explain why other NYPD employees could not be trained to do so. Finally, Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) provides that an agency may use an “outside professional service to provide copying, programming or other services required to provide the copy.” Murtagh stated that the documents are too sensitive to be shown to an outside contractor. Again, he did not grapple with the POST Act’s [Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act’s] effect on the documents’ sensitivity. Assuming that some portions of the contract documents fall within FOIL’s exemptions, Murtagh did not explain why a nondisclosure agreement would be insufficient to protect the exempt portions of the documents. Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Records Access Officer, 2025 NY Slip Op 00723, First Dept 2-6-25

Practice Point: Here the NYPD’s argument that the FOIL request for documents relating to the use of surveillance technologies was unduly burdensome was rejected.​

 

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