You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) WOULD FORCE THE TOWN TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lasalle, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town did not demonstrate as a matter of law that compliance with the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) would force the town to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

On this appeal we are asked to decide whether the vote dilution provisions of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (L 2022, ch 226; hereinafter NYVRA), intended to ensure that a numerical minority’s voice is not removed from local government, facially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (hereinafter the Equal Protection Clause) … . The defendants in this case, the Town of Newburgh and the Town Board of the Town of Newburgh (hereinafter the Town Board), lack the capacity to challenge the constitutionality of the NYVRA except to the extent that it forces them to violate the Equal Protection Clause. Since, on this record, the defendants failed to show as a matter of law that compliance with the NYVRA would force them to violate the Equal Protection Clause, we reverse the order of the Supreme Court. * * *

Here, the defendants contend that any change of its at-large electoral system to comply with the NYVRA would violate the Equal Protection Clause because it would be done with the express purpose of giving citizens statutorily grouped together by race greater electoral success than its at-large system, and that the NYVRA, unlike the FVRA, is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. * * *

However, race-based districting is only one of the possible remedies under the NYVRA; the NYVRA also contemplates remedies that do not sort voters based on race, such as such as ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, limited voting, and the elimination of staggered terms (see Election Law §§ 17-204[3]; 17-206[5][a][ii],[iv] …). Clarke v Town of Newburgh, 2025 NY Slip Op 00518, Second Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an in-depth analysis of whether the New York Voting Rights Act forces a political subdivision the violate the Equal Protection Clause in fashioning a remedy for an alleged violation of the NYVRA.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) AND WAS THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR THE 90-DAY “SAFE HARBOR” EXTENSION TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE NYVRA ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-CITIZENS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined that the defendant Town of Newburgh’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging a violation of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) was properly denied. The so-called “safe harbor” provision of the NYVRA extends the time allowed for a town to address an alleged violation for 90 days. Here the Second Department held that the actions taken by the town were not sufficient to trigger the 90-day extension:

In a case of first impression, the central issue stated broadly is whether the contents of a resolution passed by a political subdivision pursuant to the New York Voting Rights Act (see Election Law § 17-206[7][b]), in which the political subdivision purported to affirm its intent to enact and implement a remedy to a potential voting rights violation, were sufficient to trigger the 90-day safe harbor provision of that statute. * * *

On January 26, 2024, a law firm representing the plaintiffs sent the Town a NYVRA notification letter, alleging that the Town’s use of an at-large method for electing the members of the Town Board violated the NYVRA by diluting the votes of Hispanic and African-American voters. * * *

… [T]he defendants’ interpretation of the NYVRA seems to prioritize prolonging the process, potentially to strategize their position, over the underlying intent and purpose of the statute. They interpret the NYVRA as requiring a political subdivision to do nothing more than pass a resolution reciting some of the language from the statute after spending 50 days deciding whether it is worthwhile to do so. Then, after passage of a contentless resolution that commits a political subdivision to do nothing unless it unilaterally decides that a NYVRA violation “may” exist, a political subdivision enjoys a 90-day immunity from suit, regardless of whether it does anything further and even when it has conclusively decided to take no further action. These positions are irreconcilable with both the text and the purpose of the NYVRA. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to satisfy the safe harbor provision of Election Law § 17-206(7) … . Clarke v Town of Newburgh, 2025 NY Slip Op 00517, Second Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the criteria for a 90-day “safe harbor” extension to allow a town to address a complaint by citizens alleging violation of the New York Voting Rights Act.

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “INSANITY” TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO THIS ASSAULT AND FALSE ARREST ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND POLICE OFFICERS; THE TOLL APPLIES WHEN PERSONS ARE UNABLE TO PROTECT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BECAUSE OF AN INABILITY TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter for a determination whether the statute of limitations was tolled because of petitioner’s “insanity” in this assault and false arrest action against the city and police officers:

Pursuant to CPLR 208(a) “[i]f a person entitled to commence an action is under a disability because of . . . insanity at the time the cause of action accrues, and . . . the time otherwise limited [for commencing the action] is less than three years, the time shall be extended by the period of disability.” A toll pursuant to CPLR 208(a) does not toll the necessity of filing a timely notice of claim; rather, it tolls only the time in which to apply for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

CPLR 208(a) provides no definition of the term “insanity” … . However, the Court of Appeals has concluded that the insanity tolling provision should be narrowly construed and is available “only [to] those individuals who are unable to protect their legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” … . “[T]he condition of an individual’s mental capabilities is largely a factual question” … . “The task of determining whether the tolling provision [of CPLR 208] applies ‘is a pragmatic one, which necessarily involves consideration of all surrounding facts and circumstances relevant to the claimant’s ability to safeguard his or her legal rights'” … .

Here, the record before us presents a question of fact as to whether the petitioner was “unable to protect [his] legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” during the relevant period, as well as the duration of the alleged insanity … . Matter of Sinclair v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 00453, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: CPLR 208(a) provides an “insanity toll” of the statute of limitations for persons unable to protect their legal rights because of an inability to function in society.

 

,

DESPITE THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT THE INSURANCE LAW PROVISION REQUIRING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE DOES NOT APPLY TO POLICE VEHICLES, PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER, INJURED IN AN ACCIDENT WITH AN UNINSURED MOTORIST WHILE DRIVING HIS POLICE VEHICLE, WAS ENTITLED TO UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE UNDER HIS OWN PERSONAL INSURANCE POLICY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, determined that a police officer driving a police vehicle involved in an accident with an uninsured driver can seek uninsured motorist (UM/SUM) coverage under the officer’s personal insurance policy, notwithstanding the Court of Appeals ruling that “Insurance Law § 3420(f)—providing that all ‘motor vehicle’ insurance policies must contain uninsured motorist coverage— has no application to police vehicles” … :

In Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fitzgerald (25 NY3d 799), the Court of Appeals held that “a police vehicle is not a ‘motor vehicle’ covered by a [supplementary uninsured/underinsured (hereinafter SUM) motorist] endorsement under Insurance Law § 3420(f)(2)(A)” (id. at 801). This appeal requires us to address, for the first time, whether Fitzgerald and Insurance Law § 3420(f)(2)(A) preclude the principal named insured under an automobile insurance liability policy that includes a SUM endorsement from receiving SUM coverage where he or she is injured in an automobile accident with an uninsured motor vehicle while occupying a police vehicle. We conclude that the named insured is not precluded from receiving SUM coverage under those circumstances, and reverse the order appealed from. * * *

… [T]he exclusion of police vehicles from the definition of “motor vehicle” under Insurance Law § 3240(f)(1) and (2) is not determinative of this particular proceeding. Matter of Esurance Ins. Co. v Burdeynyy, 2025 NY Slip Op 00445, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here a police officer driving his police vehicle was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. Although insurers of police vehicles are not required to include uninsured motorist coverage, that did not preclude the officer from uninsured motorist coverage under his own personal policy.

 

, ,

A POLICE OFFICER DIRECTING TRAFFIC IS PERFORMING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION; THE OFFICER AND THE CITY ARE THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM LIABLITY FOR A RELATED ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city defendants and defendant police officer (McMillan) were entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. It was alleged that McMillan negligently directed the vehicle which struck plaintiff to enter the intersection. Because directing traffic is a governmental function requiring the exercise of discretion, the governmental function immunity doctrine controls:

… [T]he City defendants and McMillan established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence cause of action insofar as asserted against them irrespective of the conflicting evidence as to whether McMillan directed the driver of the vehicle into the intersection. Under the facts as alleged, if McMillan directed the driver of the vehicle into the intersection, McMillan’s action was discretionary and he and the City defendants are thus immune from liability under governmental function immunity … . If, on the other hand, McMillan was standing on the side of the road not directing any traffic, there was no negligent act and no basis for liability for him or the City defendants … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Hershkovitz v Brown, 2025 NY Slip Op 00436, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: A police officer directing traffic is performing a governmental function requiring the exercise of discretion. The officer and the city are therefore immune from liability for a related traffic accident.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A SIDEWALK DEFECT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, HERE A CURB CUT FOR A DRIVEWAY, A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined defendant property owner was not liable for any sidewalk defects created by the prior owner’s special use (a driveway) because defendant did not continue with that special use:

… [T]he defendants established, prima facie, that the property was a one-family residence that was owner occupied, and used exclusively for residential purposes. Therefore, pursuant to section 7-210(b) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the defendants established, prima facie, that they were not liable for dangerous conditions on the sidewalk abutting the property, which they did not affirmatively create, voluntarily but negligently repair, or create through a special use of the sidewalk … . The defendants also met their burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that they did not affirmatively create, voluntarily but negligently repair, or create through a special use of the sidewalk, the alleged hole in curb cut which caused the plaintiff to fall.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Even assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff provided competent evidence that a prior owner of the property made a special use of the sidewalk as a driveway, the defendants had no obligation to repair damage to the sidewalk because they did not continue to derive any special benefit from the use of the sidewalk after they purchased the property … . Byrams v Hamilton, 2025 NY Slip Op 00419, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: In order for a property owner to be liable for a sidewalk defect created by a prior owner’s special use, the current owner must have continued that special use, not the case here.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE VILLAGE CODE, WRITTEN NOTICE BY MAIL AND PUBLICATION IS SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF A TAX LIEN AND SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a concurrence, determined defendant received adequate notice of the real property tax lien and sale:

The defendant argues that the Village should have been required to commence an in rem tax lien foreclosure proceeding. However, she concedes that, pursuant to L 1993, ch 602, § 6, Code of Village of Hempstead § 119-19, and former Real Property Tax Law § 1452 (repealed by L 1993, ch 602, § 4), “[o]pting out [of a law repealing certain sections of the Real Property Tax Law] allowed the Village of Hempstead and the tax lien purchaser to use the old law, which allowed for sale of the tax lien based on a written notice to the owner by mail and publication, and the issuance of a tax deed after service of a notice to redeem on the owner by mail.” The plaintiff correctly argues that the mailing and publication of the notice of tax lien sale and the mailing of the notice of redemption were sufficient to satisfy due process in this case … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross-motion to set aside the tax lien sale and to cancel the tax deed. BR Madison, LLC v Novas, 2025 NY Slip Op 00417, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here, pursuant to the Village Code, written notice by mail and publication of a tax lien and sale satisfied the property owner’s due process rights.

 

, ,

THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality proved it did not have written notice of the road defect and plaintiff’s attempt to raise for the first time an exception to the written notice requirement in response to the summary judgment motion was improper:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she drove her vehicle over an uncovered manhole … .

“A municipality that has enacted a prior written notification law may avoid liability for a defect or hazardous condition that falls within the scope of the law if it can establish that it has not been notified in writing of the existence of the defect or hazard at a specific location” … . “Such [prior written] notice is obviated where the plaintiff demonstrates that the municipality ‘created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence’ or that a ‘special use’ conferred a benefit on the municipality” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not dispute that the defendants established, prima facie, that they had no prior written notice of the alleged roadway defect. In opposition, the plaintiff instead argued that the special use exception applied. The plaintiff, however, failed to allege that exception in either the notice of claim or the complaint … . Therefore, that new theory of liability was improperly raised in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . Anderson v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff raised an exception to the written-notice prerequisite to municipal liability for road defects for the first time in response to the municipality’s motion for summary judgment. That is too late. The exception should be raised in the notice of claim and/or the complaint.

 

,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO CLEAR ICE AND SNOW AND CERTAIN BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL; THE “STORM IN PROGRESS” RULE ONLY NEGATED THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO CLEAR THE ICE AND SNOW; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS WERE INAPPLICABLE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the “storm in progress” applied to this slip and fall because it was snowing at the time, summary judgment should not have been awarded to defendants. In addition to alleging the negligent failure to clear ice and snow, the complaint alleged the ramp where plaintiff fell violated certain provision of the NYC Building Code. The defendants did not demonstrate the code did not apply. Because there can be more than one proximate cause  the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment:

… “[T]here can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . Although there is no disagreement that the snow and ice from the storm was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall, Avenue L and the Sesame defendants each failed to establish, prima facie, that the provisions of the 1968, 2008, and 2014 New York City Building Codes relied upon by the plaintiff were inapplicable and that an alleged violation of those provisions did not proximately cause the plaintiff to fall … . Wechsler v Ave. L., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00347, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff conceded it was snowing when she slipped and fell, triggering the “storm in progress” rule which let defendants off the hook for any failure to clear ice and snow. But the plaintiff also alleged certain building code violations caused her fall. The defendants did not demonstrate the code was inapplicable so they were not entitled to summary judgment. There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE WAS BITTEN BY A POLICE DOG; THE TRAINING WAS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY MUST HAVE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY TO BE LIABLE, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality (City of Middletown) did not owe a special duty to plaintiff police officer, who was bitten by a police dog during training: The dog handler, Officer McDonald (a City of Middletown police officer), and plaintiff were participants in training sessions conducted by the NYS Homeland Security and Emergency Services when the unleased dog bit plaintiff:

As part of the training, the police dogs were off-leash. The plaintiff, who was participating in a different training event in a different building, entered the building where the explosives detection training exercise was being held and was still in progress when he was bitten by Officer McDonald’s police dog.

When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality was exercising a governmental function, a municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff. There was no evidence that Officer McDonald [the dog handler] took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendants established that Officer McDonald was an attendee at a training program conducted by the New York State Homeland Security and Emergency Services at a New York State facility, that he merely participated in the training exercise, and that he took direction from the NYPD canine instructor. Mahar v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 00315, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the police dog handler did not have control of the unleashed dog when it bit plaintiff. The dog and the handler were participating in an explosive-detection training session conducted by a third party. Because the dog handler had not taken control of a known and dangerous safety condition (the dog) at the time plaintiff was injured, the dog handler did not owe plaintiff a special duty, a prerequisite to municipal liability.

 

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