You are here: / Municipal Law
,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Where a municipality has a written notice requirement which has not been met, it still can be liable for a dangerous condition it created. However a defect which develops gradually over time, as opposed to immediately after some act by the municipality, is not actionable. Here the collapse of pavement near a storm drain was caused by water over time:

​

There is no dispute that defendant established that it lacked prior written notice, thus shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception to the general rule is applicable … . Such an exception exists where “the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence” … . That exception, however, applies only “to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . Here, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact because his expert opined that the dangerous condition developed over time as a result of the intake of storm water, not that the dangerous condition was the immediate result of allegedly negligent work … . Malek v Village of Depew, 2017 NY Slip Op 08998, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator had not exceeded her authority in interpreting the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to require full medical coverage for retiring firefighters. The Fourth Department explained the limited review powers of a court with respect to arbitration awards:

​

“It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited”… . The court must vacate an arbitration award where the arbitrator exceeds a limitation on his or her power as set forth in the CBA … . The court, however, lacks the authority to “examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one”… .

Here, the arbitrator merely interpreted and applied the provisions of the CBA, as she had the authority to do. The court is powerless to set aside that interpretation merely because the court disagrees with it, and we may not countenance such an action. In any event, we conclude that the plain language of the CBA supports the arbitrator’s reasoning. Matter of Lackawanna Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 3166, IAFF, AFL-CIO (City of Lackawanna), 2017 NY Slip Op 08994, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

ARBITRATION (SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, (SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, (SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

FACT THAT FATHER’S SISTER WORKED FOR ST LAWRENCE COUNTY DSS (SLCDSS) DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SLCDSS CAN PROSECUTE THE NEGLECT PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the fact that father’s sister was a supervisor in St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services (SLCDSS) did not present a conflict of interest such that SLCDSS could not prosecute a neglect petition. Family Court had transferred the matter to the Jefferson County Department of Social Services (JCDSS):

​

In SLCDSS’s papers submitted in response to petitioner’s motion, SLCDSS noted that the father’s sister is a grade A supervisor in its Child Preventive Services Unit and, in light of the neglect petition, the case would be transferred from the Child Protective Unit to the Child Preventive Services Unit. The mere fact, however, that the father’s sister was employed with SLCDSS as a supervisor does not justify disqualifying SLCDSS from prosecuting the neglect petition, especially where SLCDSS does not demonstrate that such fact created actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence … . Moreover, the record discloses that since Family Court’s order, SLCDSS has taken steps to ensure that the father’s sister has no supervisory role in the father’s case. In view of the foregoing, we find that no conflict of interest exists prohibiting SLCDSS from prosecuting the neglect proceeding … . Matter of Gage II. (Rachel JJ.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08931, Third Dept 12-21-17

FAMILY LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, FACT THAT FATHER’S SISTER WORKED FOR ST LAWRENCE COUNTY DSS (SLCDSS) DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SLCDSS CAN PROSECUTE THE NEGLECT PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, DSS, FACT THAT FATHER’S SISTER WORKED FOR ST LAWRENCE COUNTY DSS (SLCDSS) DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SLCDSS CAN PROSECUTE THE NEGLECT PETITION (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, FACT THAT FATHER’S SISTER WORKED FOR ST LAWRENCE COUNTY DSS (SLCDSS) DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SLCDSS CAN PROSECUTE THE NEGLECT PETITION (THIRD DEPT))

,

TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town did not demonstrate it did not created the dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The town’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

​

Here, the plaintiff alleged in his bill of particulars that the Town negligently caused, permitted, and allowed the barricade to be placed in such a way that a part of the barricade extended out into the line of pedestrian traffic. Thus, to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Town was required to establish, prima facie, both that it did not receive prior written notice of the condition and that it did not create the condition through an affirmative act of negligence … .

​

Although the Town established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the allegedly negligent positioning of the barricade, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition through an affirmative act of negligence. Since the Town’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it was responsible for the allegedly negligent placement of the barricade, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition … . Toscano v Town of Huntington, 2017 NY Slip Op 08872, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this action brought by a former jail inmate for injuries related to suicide attempt (by jumping out a window) was properly denied. The defendants failed to demonstrate the attempt was not foreseeable and that the medical care provided was adequate:

​

The County owes a duty of care to protect its prisoners, even from self-inflicted harm… . However, the County is not an insurer of prisoner safety and negligence cannot be inferred merely because an incident occurred… . Rather, the County’s duty is limited to providing reasonable care to protect prisoners from risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable, i.e., those that the County knew or should have known… .

Here, the defendants, as the parties seeking summary judgment, bore the burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff’s attempt to commit suicide was not foreseeable… . … The defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants knew or should have known that the injured plaintiff posed a risk of harm to herself and whether the defendants “failed to use adequate supervision to prevent that which was reasonably foreseeable”… . Moreover, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they violated 42 USC § 1983 by depriving the injured plaintiff of her Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care … , and Mr. Iannelli’s claim for loss of consortium … . Iannelli v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 08815, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL (NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/JAILS (NEGLIGENCE, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SUICIDE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county had not met its burden and its motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff, an inmate at the county jail, alleged he was injured in a fight involving other inmates. The complaint alleged the failure to keep the inmate safe and the failure to provide adequate medical care. The proof offered by the county did not demonstrate the altercation was not foreseeable, the protective measures were adequate, or the medical care was adequate. The failure to offer sufficient proof addressing these issues required the denial of summary judgment:

​

“Having assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the [municipality owes] a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates” … . “Like other duties in tort, the scope of the . . . duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable” … . On its motion for summary judgment, the County had the burden of establishing that the assault of the plaintiff was not foreseeable … . The County did not meet that burden, as it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it knew or should have known of the dangerous propensity of certain inmates involved in the assault, or of prior similar incidents occurring while meals were being distributed by inmates. Evidence submitted by the County indicated that such altercations involving inmates distributing meals occurred monthly. Moreover, the County also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm … .

With respect to the second cause of action, which alleged a failure to provide the plaintiff with timely, adequate medical attention, a municipality owes a duty to its incarcerated citizens to provide them with adequate medical care … . The County did not submit the affidavit of an expert attesting to the adequacy of the medical care provided to the plaintiff. Its attorney’s conclusory assertion that the plaintiff received timely, adequate medical care, together with its submission of the plaintiff’s medical records, failed to establish the County’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter law dismissing the second cause of action … . Adeleke v County of Suffolk, 2017 NY Slip Op 08803, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (INMATES, NEGLIGENCE,  COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (NEGLIGENCE, COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/JAILS (NEGLIGENCE, COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined sealed records were properly unsealed in this sex offender civil commitment hearing:

​

The Supreme Court properly granted the State’s motion to unseal the records kept by the Office of the Suffolk County District Attorney and the Suffolk County Police Department regarding the defendant’s 2001 arrest for rape in the first degree. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(c) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the commissioner, the case review panel and the attorney general shall be entitled to request from any agency, office, department or other entity of the state, and such entity shall be authorized to provide upon request, any and all records and reports relating to the respondent’s commission or alleged commission of a sex offense, the institutional adjustment and any treatment received by such respondent, and any medical, clinical or other information relevant to a determination of whether the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management.” “The primary goal of the court in interpreting a statute is to determine and implement the Legislature’s intent”… . Given the legislative purpose underlying Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(c), we have construed this statute to permit authorized parties to obtain records from local government entities in addition to State entities … . Matter of State of New York v David B., 2017 NY Slip Op 08831, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SEALED RECORDS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS,  SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/SEALED RECORDS SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

,

NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL. ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined the rate hike imposed by the NYC Water Board was not arbitrary and capricious. The board imposed a 2.1% rate increase, a bill credit, and assistance programs and low-consumption rate freeze. Petitioners — various landlords not eligible for the bill credit and a landlords’ not-for-profit association — … assert that the Water Board’s determinations were irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and exceeded the Board’s authority:

​

Our case law holds that a utility has “unfettered discretion to fix [rates] as it will so long as invidious illicit discriminations are not practiced and differentials are not utterly arbitrary and unsupported by economic or public policy goals, as it reasonably conceives them”… . A petitioner’s task in demonstrating that the rate-setting agency’s determination is unreasonable is appropriately described as a “heavy burden” … .

It is clear from the governing statutes that water and sewer rates may be determined in accordance with public policy goals, and not only economic goals. The Water Board “may take into consideration the views and policies of any elected official or body, or other person” and ultimately “appl[ies] independent judgment in the best interest of the authority, its mission and the public” … . Moreover, the statutory scheme gives the Board leeway to charge more than the bare minimum necessary for revenue recovery, by stating that the rates are to generate “revenues which, together with other revenues available to the board, if any, shall be at least sufficient at all times so that such system or systems shall be placed on a self-sustaining basis” … . In short, New York City’s “Water Board is granted broad authority to set rates for water usage” … .

Here, we cannot say that respondents’ actions were “utterly arbitrary and unsupported by economic or public policy goals, as it reasonably conceives them” … . Matter of Prometheus Realty Corp. v New York City Water Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08801, CtApp 12-19-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP))/WATER BOARD (NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP))

,

WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the muddy, wet conditions surrounding a town baseball field constituted a non-actionable open and obvious condition:

​

Each of the defendants established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the muddy condition of the field, caused by rain, was an open and obvious condition readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and not inherently dangerous… . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff relied on the affidavit of an expert whose opinion concerning the maintenance of the subject field was conclusory and speculative with no independent factual basis, and thus, insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment … . Sirianni v Town of Oyster Bay, 2017 NY Slip Op 08707, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS  (SLIP AND FALL, WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUDDY GROUND (SLIP AND FALL, WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the valuation of land for condemnation purposes should not have been based upon the assumption a special use permit would be granted, allowing the construction of retail stores on the property:

​

The Supreme Court also erred in determining that the highest and best use of parcel 1 and parcel 2 on the date of the taking was retail use at the maximum allowable density. “The measure of damages in a condemnation case must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time'”… . The determination of highest and best use must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of the property in the near future … . “Ordinarily potential uses the court may consider in determining value are limited to those uses permitted by the zoning regulations at the time of taking” … . However, when there is a reasonable probability of rezoning, some adjustment must be made to the value of the property to reflect that fact … .

Here, the claimants failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that they would have been granted a special use permit … . The expert planner did not review the history of any special use permit applications to the Town Board, or reference any large-scale retail developments that were located on the vesting date in the immediate area of the subject property. Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v 55 Motor Ave. Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08672, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EMINENT DOMAIN (IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/CONDEMNATION (EMINENT DOMAIN, IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/HIGHEST AND BEST USE (IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND 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