You are here: / Municipal Law
, , , ,

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school district’s motion to set aside the verdict for legal insufficiency should have been granted. Plaintiff assistant principal sued the district after she was injured breaking up a fight between students. She had previously been injured by a student and had complained that more security was needed on the floor where she was hurt. The Second Department explained that plaintiff could not recover unless a special relationship with the school district had been proven:

On a legal sufficiency challenge, whether made pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case or pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict, the relevant inquiry is whether there is any rational process by which the trier of fact could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Absent the existence of a special relationship between the defendants and the injured plaintiff, liability may not be imposed on the defendants for the breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system and members of the public … . A special relationship can be formed, inter alia, if the defendants voluntarily assumed a special duty to the injured plaintiff upon which she justifiably relied … . In order to succeed on this theory, the plaintiffs were required to establish four elements: (1) an assumption by the defendants, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured plaintiff; (2) knowledge on the part of defendants’ agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the defendants’ agents and the injured plaintiff; and (4) the injured plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the defendants’ affirmative undertaking … . Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 03673, Second Dept 5-23-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE  (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (SET ASIDE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, determined that the NYC Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) acted rationally when it included two buildings among 13 others designated as a landmark, called the First Avenue Estate or FAE historic landmark. The petitioner wanted to destroy the two buildings and construct condominiums, an action prohibited by the landmark designation. The First Department further held that the landmark designation was not an unconstitutional taking. The opinion is extensive and detailed and cannot be fairly summarized here. Matter of Stahl York Ave. Co., LLC v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03653, First Dept 5-22-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, LANDMARKS, THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))/LANDMARKS (THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LANDMARKS,  THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner, a private residential school for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Center for Discovery), had exhausted its administrative remedies in seeking reimbursement from the NYC Department of Education for providing 24-hour care for a student with autism (pursuant to an Individualized Education Plan or IEP). The matter was therefore sent back to Supreme Court. The First Department noted that, although estoppel is usually not available in an action against a governmental agency, it may be appropriate here based upon the respondent’s alleged promise to reimburse petitioner and petitioner’s reliance on that promise:

… [W]e disagree that the doctrine of “exhaustion of remedies” precludes review of this case… .

A “final and binding” determination is one where the agency “reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury,” and the injury may not be “significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … .

Respondent reached a definitive position concerning reimbursement for the additional services mandated by the amended IEP that inflicted concrete injury on petitioner. Counsel’s … email clearly stated that the City would not be reimbursing petitioner for the additional services mandated by the amended IEP. Petitioner had no available means of seeking review of respondent’s decision from respondent or any other City or State agency empowered to review, overturn, or reverse the City’s determination concerning reimbursement for the services explicitly mandated by the City in the amended IEP. The email was thus the “final” determination of respondent City on the issue … . …

Petitioner … alleges that it relied on respondent’s representation that it would be reimbursed for the additional services mandated and provided under the amended IEP. While estoppel is generally not available in an action against a government agency, this case presents a factual dispute as to the applicability of the doctrine that must be determined upon remand … . Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v NYC Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 03494, First Dept 5-15-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant village’s motion for summary judgment in this parking lot ice and snow slip and fall case was properly denied. The village demonstrated that it did not have written notice of the dangerous condition, but did not demonstrate it did not created the dangerous condition, which plaintiff alleged resulted from the piling of snow in the area:

In the complaint and bill of particulars, the plaintiffs alleged that the Village created the ice condition on which Seegers fell by plowing snow into large piles directly adjacent to parking areas and walkways, thereby blocking drains and allowing the snow to thaw and refreeze, and by failing to properly salt or sand the area … . Accordingly, the Village was required to demonstrate both that it did not have prior written notice of the ice condition in the subject parking lot and that it did not create that condition… .

Although the Village demonstrated that it did not receive written notice of an ice condition in the subject parking lot prior to the accident, it failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not create the ice condition that allegedly caused Seegers to fall … . Seegers v Village of Mineola, 2018 NY Slip Op 03387, Second Dept 5-9-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW,  ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s request for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner’s car collided with a car, driven by Cedeno, when Cedeno crossed into on-coming traffic after running over a half-open manhole and losing control. Cedeno had served a timely notice of claim upon the city. The Second Department determined the city had timely notice of the essential facts of the petitioner’s claim:

While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative … , whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance … . The public corporation must have “knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim,” and not merely some general knowledge that a wrong has been committed … . A petitioner’s lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is not necessarily fatal when weighed against other relevant factors … .

The petitioner … demonstrated that the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim by way of the timely notice of claim served upon it by Cedeno … . Cedeno’s notice of claim specifically described the nature of the accident between Cedeno and the petitioner. Inasmuch as the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts of the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner made an initial showing that the City was not prejudiced by her delay in serving a notice of claim … . Matter of Tejada v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03370, Second Dept 5-9-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the city’s decision to layoff firefighters was not arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement. The Civil Service Law vests nondelegable discretion to hire and fire in the public corporation:

… [A] dispute is nonarbitrable if a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis, that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided by arbitration … . Put differently, a court must stay arbitration where it can conclude, upon the examination of the parties’ contract and any implicated statute on their face, “that the granting of any relief would violate public policy” … .

Addressing the union’s claim regarding the layoffs of the firefighters, Civil Service Law § 80(1) provides that a public employer has the nondelegable discretion to determine—for reasons of economy, among others—what its staffing and budgetary needs are in order to effectively deliver uninterrupted services to the public … . In the absence of bad faith, fraud, or collusion, that discretion “is an undisputed management prerogative” for the public’s benefit, and cannot be altered or modified by agreement or otherwise… . Thus, arbitration of the claim regarding the layoffs of the firefighters would violate public policy. Matter of City of Long Beach v Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 287, 2018 NY Slip Op 03356, Second Dept 5-9-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRATION (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/UNIONS (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, ARBITRATION, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC POLICY (MUNICIPAL LAW, ARBITRATION, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the school (District) was properly granted. Petitioner had timely filed a notice of claim against the village, and the school was aware of the essential facts of the claim within the 90-day filing period. Petitioner alleged her son, who had broken his arm, was not supervised or assisted by the school at the time he tripped, fell and further injured his arm:

Here, the District had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within the statutory period … . Furthermore, the petitioners made an initial showing that the District would not suffer any substantial prejudice by the delay, and the District failed to rebut the petitioners’ showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … . Even if the petitioners’ reason for failing to timely serve the District was not reasonable, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and the absence of prejudice … . Matter of D.D. v Village of Great Neck, 2018 NY Slip Op 03358, Second Dept 5-9-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW,  LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/STUDENTS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town’s motion for summary judgment in this snowplow-car accident case should have been granted. Even though the plow was up at the time of the accident, the Vehicle and Traffic Law “reckless disregard” standard applied, and the snowplow driver’s (Hanssen’s) actions did not amount to “reckless disregard:”

… [D]efendants established as a matter of law that the reckless disregard standard of care, and not negligence, is applicable to this case pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of Hanssen, who testified that he was plowing snow and salting the roads on his assigned route at the time of the accident, and section 1103 (b) applies where, as here, a snowplow truck is “actually engaged in work on a highway” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, although defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiffs that the plow blade was up at the time of the accident, that is not enough to raise an issue of fact inasmuch as it was uncontroverted that Hanssen was salting the road and was “working his run’ or beat’ at the time of the accident” … . …

Hanssen testified at his deposition that he slowed down as he approached the stop sign and was moving at a speed of five miles per hour just prior to the intersection. He looked both ways for traffic, but did not see plaintiffs’ approaching vehicle. That evidence, which was not controverted by the deposition testimony of plaintiffs, established that Hanssen did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Harris v Hanssen, 2018 NY Slip Op 03257, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SNOWPLOWS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant city’s motion for summary judgment in this car-pedestrian injury case should not have been granted. The city had paved a driveway which connected a road to a pave walking path in a park. Defendant driver, who was intoxicated, drove his car to the park path where plaintiffs had been walking their dogs. There were no barriers or warning signs. The city was not immune because maintenance of a park is a proprietary, not a governmental function:

… [W]e note that, while the City has a duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition … , plaintiffs’ claims also implicate the City’s “duty to maintain its park and playground facilities in a reasonably safe condition”… . We thus reject the City’s contention that it is immune from liability because plaintiffs’ claims arise from its performance of a governmental function. “It is well settled that regardless of whether or not it is a source of income the operation of a public park by a municipality is a quasi-private or corporate and not a governmental function” … . Furthermore, a “municipality may not ignore the foreseeable dangers [it created], continue to extend an invitation to the public to use the area and not be held accountable for resultant injuries” … . Similarly, where, as here, it is undisputed that the City did not consider and render a determination regarding any potential danger prior to paving the driveway, the City’s maintenance of the intersection in question is also a proprietary function … . …

The City never disputed in its motion papers that it paved the driveway during its development of the park, thereby creating the condition of which plaintiffs now complain, but it instead argued that “[p]laintiffs have offered no evidence” that the City failed to adhere to applicable design standards or that the driveway created or enhanced a risk to park patrons. It is well established that “a party does not carry its burden in moving for summary judgment by pointing to gaps in its opponent’s proof” … . Similarly, because the City relied exclusively on its argument, unsupported by any evidence, that a defective or dangerous condition did not exist for which a warning was required, it also failed to establish as a matter of law that it had no duty to warn of the foreseeable danger of collision created by this driveway access … . Brady v City of N. Tonawanda, 2018 NY Slip Op 03253, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANT (CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/IMMUNITY (CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/PARKS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (GAPS IN PROOF, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS AND FATHER SUED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his cross claim against the county (seeking a determination that the county is obligated to defend and indemnify him) should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s son was killed in a car accident. Defendant, who was then a county coroner, without permission, took plaintiff’s son’s brain matter for use in training cadaver dogs. There was a question of fact whether the county was obligated to defend the coroner pursuant to the Public Officers Law, which applies to actions within the scope of employment:

A county’s duty to defend an employee “turns on whether [the employee was] acting within the scope of [his or her] employment,” and whether the obligation to defend the employee “was formally adopted by a local governing body” … . In order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Public Officers Law § 18, it was incumbent on defendant to establish the applicability of that section … . Here, the court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant while still finding that there are issues of fact that bear on the applicability of Public Officers Law § 18 to defendant’s claims … . Dunn v County of Niagara, 2018 NY Slip Op 03271, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH 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