Municipal Law – Page 85 – New York Appellate Digest

SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Rockland County Solid Waste Authority (Authority) was a public benefit corporation which was subject to the Public Authorities Law, not the Municipal Law. Therefore the Authority properly accepted a bid for recycling services which was not the lowest bid:

General Municipal Law § 103(1) provides that all contracts for public work involving expenditures in excess of $35,000 must be awarded to “the lowest responsible bidder.” However, that provision applies only to contracts to which “political subdivision[s] or . . . any district therein” are parties … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, public benefit corporations such as the Authority are ” legal entities separate from the State, enjoying an existence separate and apart from the State, its agencies and political subdivisions'” … . As such, any limitations placed on the Authority’s power to contract must come from the Authority’s enabling statute, not the General Municipal Law. The Authority’s enabling statute broadly permits it “[t]o contract with . . . persons within or without the county, for the purpose of receiving, treating and disposing of solid waste or for any other purpose authorized hereunder, including, without limitation, the power to contract with . . . persons for the delivery of all solid waste generated within a stated area to a specific solid waste management facility” … . Unlike General Municipal Law § 103, the Authority’s enabling statute does not require contracts such as the one at issue here to be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder.” Thus, the petitioner’s contention that the Authority acted beyond its grant of power is without merit. Matter of AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. v Town of Stony Point, N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 02203, Second Dept 3-28-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/PUBIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS, BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/RECYCLING (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/BIDS (SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))

March 28, 2018

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiff, an administrative law judge for the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, stated a cause of action for age discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), (2) plaintiff’s failure to file a Notice of Claim required dismissal of the cause of action alleging a free speech violation of the State Constitution, and (3) plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a First Amendment retaliation cause of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983, should have been granted:

The allegations that there was disparate treatment of older employees, including the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff’s disciplinary charges were based, in part, on age discrimination, sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover for age discrimination pursuant to the NYCHRL … . …

The plaintiff’s failure to serve a notice of claim requires dismissal of the cause of action alleging violations of the State Constitution … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the action does not fall within the public interest exception to the notice of claim requirement, since the complaint seeks to vindicate the private rights of the plaintiff, and the disposition of the claim will not directly affect or vindicate the rights of others … . Further, although the complaint named the individual defendants in their individual capacities, it alleged retaliation by them as part of their employment, and, thus, the notice of claim requirement applied … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert an alternative First Amendment retaliation cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, for which a notice of claim is not required… . In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . Mirro v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02154, Second Dept 3-28-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATIO.. N, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/AGE DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983) (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/FIRST AMENDMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/RETALIATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))

March 28, 2018

Municipal Law, Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant police officer involved a traffic accident with plaintiff was proceeding through a red light or a green light on his way to an (another) accident scene. If the light was red, the reckless disregard standard would apply to the officer’s driving. If the light was green, the normal negligence standard would apply:

We reject defendants’ contention that the color of the traffic light is not a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment. If the factfinder determines that defendant officer was engaged in the exempt conduct of proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [2]), then the reckless disregard standard of care would apply under the circumstances presented herein … . If, however, the factfinder credits defendant officer’s account that he was proceeding through a green light, then the alleged injury-causing conduct by defendant officer would be governed by principles of ordinary negligence… . Inasmuch as the resolution of that factual issue will determine the standard of care by which the factfinder must evaluate defendant officer’s conduct … , we conclude that the court erred in determining on the submissions before it that the reckless disregard standard applies as a matter of law. Furthermore, the determination of the color of the traffic light at the time of the collision, and each driver’s compliance with the standard of care that will apply upon resolution of that material factual issue, depends on the memory and credibility of witnesses … . Inasmuch as a court’s role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is ” issue-finding, rather than issue-determination’ ” … , we reject defendants’ contention that they are entitled to summary judgment at this juncture … . Oddo v City of Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 02041, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICERS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

March 23, 2018

Employment Law, Municipal Law

VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, JOB DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that the termination of a village employee (Jakubowicz) was arbitrary and capricious. The employee was fired because he did not have a commercial driver’s license. However, the Mechanic II position does not explicitly require a commercial driver’s license:

The Village, as limited by its brief, contends that a commercial driver’s license is a minimum qualification for Jakubowicz’s position as a Mechanic II in the Village and that his failure to maintain such minimum qualification required the termination of his employment. We reject that contention. The Mechanic II position in the Village requires, inter alia, “[p]ossession, at time of appointment and during service in this classification, of a valid NYS Motor Vehicle Operator’s license appropriate for the type of vehicles which the employee may from time to time operate.” ” [B]oth due process and fundamental fairness require that a qualification or requirement of employment be expressly stated in order for an employer to bypass the protections afforded by the Civil Service Law or a collective bargaining agreement and summarily terminate an employee’ ” … . Here, the requirement of a commercial driver’s license is not “expressly stated” … . Furthermore, while “an employee charged with failing to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is only entitled to notice of the charge and the opportunity to contest it” … , the Village here offered Jakubowicz a hearing “to afford [him] the opportunity to present information to the Village why [he] should not be administratively terminated from employment.” There is no dispute that a hearing was never held. Matter of Jakubowicz v Village of Fredonia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02059, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, JOB DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, JOB DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, JOB DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE (FOURTH DEPT))

March 23, 2018

Civil Rights Law, Employment Law, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Municipal Law, Negligence

COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated causes of action against the city and a city police officer (DeBellis) in connection with, inter alia, warrantless home visits by the officer purportedly concerning the well-being of plaintiff’s child and allegedly false complaints by the officer to the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS):

… [A]lthough not expressly pleaded, the factual allegations in the complaint fit within a cause of action against DeBellis for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on her alleged malicious or reckless false reporting to ACS and malicious campaign of harassment. …

…[W]e cannot say, as a matter of law, that DeBellis’s actions did not rise to the requisite level of outrageous conduct. The facts alleged by plaintiff describe both (1) a deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment and intimidation and (2) an abuse of power. …

Plaintiff has also stated a claim against defendants under 42 USC § 1983 for deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, specifically, her right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from warrantless and unlawful entries into the home … . …

Despite … allegations of repeated notice to DeBellis’s superiors of her actions, there is no indication … any action was taken to restrain her. Accordingly … plaintiff has stated a claim for holding the City liable under § 1983 on account of its gross negligence or deliberate indifference to DeBellis’s unconstitutional actions … . …

…[Plaintiff] states a claim against the City for negligent supervision and retention of DeBellis … . Under this theory, an employer may be liable for the acts of an employee outside the scope of his or her employment … . Contrary to the City’s argument, the facts permit an inference that DeBellis was acting outside of the scope of her employment, and, as plaintiff argues, “had some personal axe to grind.” Scollar v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02032, First Dept 3-22-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983) (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

March 22, 2018

Municipal Law, Negligence

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negligent supervision lawsuit against the city by an inmate who was assaulted by another inmate was properly dismissed. The attack was not foreseeable from the standpoint of the correctional facility personnel:

A municipality owes a duty of care to inmates in correctional facilities to safeguard them from attacks from other inmates … . This duty, however, does not place the municipality in the role of insurers of inmate safety … . Rather, “the scope of the [municipality’s] duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable” … . Foreseeability includes what the defendant municipality knew or should have known … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the assault upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable. In this regard, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the plaintiff’s assailant was not a known gang member, had no prior incidents of fighting or aggressive behavior while at Rikers Island, and was not classified as high risk for fighting. Additionally, their submissions established that the plaintiff did not know or see his assailant, who, without provocation, punched him in the jaw, and that at the time there was a correction officer present providing the proper level of supervision in accordance with the applicable standard of “active supervision” as defined in the State Commission of Correction Minimum Standards and Regulations for Management of County Jails and Penitentiaries … . McAllister v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 01909, Second Dept 3-21-18

NEGLIGENCE (SUPERVISION OF INMATES, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (NEGLIGENCE, SUPERVISION, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, SUPERVISION, SUPERVISION OF INMATES, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (INMATE ON INMATE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))

March 21, 2018

Contract Law, Landlord-Tenant, Municipal Law

EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a cell phone tower lease with a municipality did not expire. An extension of the lease was ratified by the municipality when it continued to accept lease payments after the expiration of the first five-year term:

… [I]n seeking a declaration that the lease expired … , the plaintiffs alleged that the Village’s Board of Trustees … only authorized the lease for a term of five years. Indeed, the resolution provided that “the term of the leases [sic] shall not exceed a period of five (5) years from the date upon which it is executed.” The lease, however, provided that the initial term of the lease “will be five (5) years from the Commencement Date'” … , “and shall automatically renew for up to ten (10) additional terms of five (5) years each.

Verizon and AG separately moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lease did not expire … , because the Village ratified the lease by accepting rental payments, issuing building permits, and granting variance applications in connection with the construction of the cell tower. …

“A contract that is not approved by a relevant municipal or governmental body, as required by law, rule, or regulation, may be ratified by the municipality or government body by subsequent conduct, such as by making payments pursuant to the contract” … . Giunta v AG Towers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01905, Second Dept 3-21-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (RATIFICATION, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/RATIFICATION (CONTRACT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (CONTRACT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))

March 21, 2018

Civil Procedure, Land Use, Municipal Law, Zoning

ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the town respondents violated General Municipal Law 239-m by not referring an application for an area variance by respondent mining operation to the planning board. The violation was a jurisdictional defect that did not trigger the 30-day statute of limitations:

“General Municipal Law § 239-m requires that a municipal agency, before taking final action on an application for [land use] approval, refer that application to a county or regional planning board for its recommendation”… . It is undisputed that the ZBA (zoning board of appeals) did not refer the initial application for an area variance to the Cayuga County Planning Board (County Planning Board) before taking final action on that application. Contrary to the contention of the Town respondents, area variances are proposed actions for which referral is required under the statute … . “The alleged failure to comply with the referral provisions of the statute is not a mere procedural irregularity but is rather a jurisdictional defect involving the validity of a legislative act” … . Thus, the ZBA’s failure to refer the initial application for an area variance to the County Planning Board renders the subsequent approval by the ZBA “null and void” … . Matter of Fichera v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 01843, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

ZONING (VARIANCES, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (ZONING, VARIANCES, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ZONING, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))

March 16, 2018

Environmental Law, Land Use, Municipal Law

LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined that local laws governing the use of agricultural land did not violate the public trust doctrine:

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the public trust doctrine applied to the property interest at issue, namely, development rights in agricultural land, as the plaintiffs demonstrated prima facie that the County acquired these development rights for public use and not in its “corporate capacity” … . …

… [T]he County defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the contested provisions in Local Law Nos. 52-2010 and 44-2013, namely, those concerning commercial horse boarding and equine operations, agricultural development permits for structures and alternative energy systems, maximum lot coverages and the hardship exemption thereto, agricultural tourism, special use permits to conduct a site disturbance or a special event, agricultural processing facilities, hay rides, and agricultural educational tours, did not waste public property or violate the public trust doctrine … . Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy., Inc. v Suffolk County Legislature, 2018 NY Slip Op 01598, Second Dept 3-14-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/AGRICULTURAL LAND (PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))

March 14, 2018

Immunity, Municipal Law, Negligence, Utilities

COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined that the complaints stated causes of action against the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), and National Grid Electric Services LLC based upon defendants’ failure to shut down the power in advance of landfall by Hurricane Sandy. Plaintiffs alleged the failure to shut down the power resulted in fires which destroyed their property. The complaints alleged the defendants acted in a proprietary, not governmental, capacity and therefore were not entitled to governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants, at this pre-answer stage, had not met their burden of demonstrating their actions were governmental:

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as asserted against them on the ground that LIPA was immune from liability based on the doctrine of governmental function immunity, and that LILCO and National Grid were entitled to the same defense. Specifically, LIPA argued, among other things, that the actions challenged were taken in the exercise of its governmental capacity and were discretionary, and, even if they were not discretionary, plaintiffs’ failure to allege a special duty in the complaints amounted to a failure to state viable claims. Plaintiffs opposed the motions on the ground that defendants’ actions were proprietary, not governmental, and that special duty rules did not apply. Supreme Court denied the motions to dismiss in three substantially similar orders. * * *

… .[P]laintiffs’ allegations concern the provision of electrical power by defendants, a service that traditionally has been provided by private entities in the State of New York. In fact, LIPA itself was created to replace LILCO which, at the time, was an “investor owned utility” (Public Authorities Law § 1020-a). This takeover was anomalous and, when the legislation creating LIPA was enacted, the New York State Public Service Commission — the agency charged with ensuring safe and reliable utility service throughout the State — observed that, “[i]n New York State we have generally adopted a system of private ownership subject to close regulation” … . …

… [W]e cannot say, as a matter of law based only on the allegations in the amended complaints, as amplified, that LIPA was acting in a governmental, rather than a proprietary, capacity when engaged in the conduct claimed to have caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Connolly v Long Is. Power Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01148, CtApp 2-20-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (ELECTRIC POWER, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/UTILITIES (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/ELECTRIC POWER (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))

February 20, 2018