You are here: / Municipal Law
,

PETITIONERS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED GAS STATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE BOARD’S SEQRA RULING APPROVING CONSTRUCTION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE BOARD’S APPROVAL WAS IMPROPER UNDER SEQRA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined one of the petitioners did not have standing to contest the board’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) ruling because he lived more that 2000 feet from the proposed gas station. The other petitioners, whose businesses were across the street from the proposed gas station, had standing. The Second Department held that the board had not taken the required “hard look” at the proposal to add a gas station with 16 pumps to the project which had been approved:

… [T]he Supreme Court properly concluded that the Planning Board failed to comply with the substantive requirements of SEQRA in determining that a second SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement] was not required prior to its approval of the site plan. As is relevant to this appeal, a lead agency may require a SEIS, “limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from . . . changes proposed for the project” (6 NYCRR 617.9[a][7][i]). “In making this fact-intensive determination, the lead agency has discretion to weigh and evaluate the credibility of reports and comments submitted to it and must assess environmental concerns in conjunction with other economic and social planning goals”… .

Although a lead agency’s determination whether to require a SEIS, or a second SEIS, is discretionary … , the lead agency must “consider[ ] the environmental issues requiring permits” and must make “an independent judgment that they would not create significant environmental impact” … . Here, the changes proposed for the project after the issuance of the 2009 findings statement included the construction of a large convenience store with 16 gas pumps. …

Under these circumstances, the Planning Board failed to take the requisite hard look at the project change adding the gas station, and did not make a reasoned elaboration of its basis for determining that a second SEIS was not necessary to address that change … . Matter of Green Earth Farms Rockland, LLC v Town of Haverstraw Planning Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 06273, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONERS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED GAS STATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN BOARD’S SEQRA RULING APPROVING CONSTRUCTION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE TOWN BOARD’S APPROVAL WAS IMPROPER UNDER SEQRA (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PETITIONERS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED GAS STATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN BOARD’S SEQRA RULING APPROVING CONSTRUCTION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE TOWN BOARD’S APPROVAL WAS IMPROPER UNDER SEQRA (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PETITIONERS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED GAS STATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN BOARD’S SEQRA RULING APPROVING CONSTRUCTION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE TOWN BOARD’S APPROVAL WAS IMPROPER UNDER SEQRA (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (PETITIONERS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED GAS STATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN BOARD’S SEQRA RULING APPROVING CONSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that testimony at a Municipal Law 50-h hearing cannot be relied upon to assert a cause of action not included in the notice of claim. Here the notice of claim alleged the city failed to provide timely medical care to plaintiff’s decedent, who died of a heart attack after he was arrested. Although plaintiff testified at the 50-h hearing that plaintiff’s decedent told a doctor he had been beaten by the police, the notice of claim made no mention of any causes of action based on that allegation:

“In making a determination on the sufficiency of a notice of claim, a court’s inquiry is not limited to the four corners of the notice of claim”… . A court may consider the testimony provided during an examination conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and any other evidence properly before it to correct a good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the notice of claim… . However, in determining the sufficiency of a notice of claim, testimony during an examination conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h cannot be used to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability set forth in the notice of claim … .

Here, the notice of claim was limited to allegations that the police officers involved in the decedent’s arrest failed to obtain timely medical assistance for the decedent while he was in their custody, and that the hospital staff negligently treated the decedent. There were no allegations, either express or implied, that the police had assaulted the decedent, or that the defendants negligently hired, supervised, or retained the police officers who were involved in the decedent’s arrest. The plaintiff’s testimony at the General Municipal Law § 50-h examination cannot be used to amend the theories of liability set forth in the notice of claim … . Davis v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/50-H HEARING (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))

,

42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ADEQUATELY ALLEGE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ACTED PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR CUSTOM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the 42 USC 1983 cause of action was properly dismissed. The action stemmed from an arrest. Plaintiff did not adequately allege the police officers acted pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or custom:

To hold a municipality liable under section 1983 for the conduct of employees below the policymaking level, a plaintiff must show that the violation of his or her constitutional rights resulted from a municipal custom or policy … . Here, “[a]lthough the complaint alleged as a legal conclusion that the defendant[ ] engaged in conduct pursuant to a policy or custom which deprived the plaintiff of certain constitutional rights, it was wholly unsupported by any allegations of fact identifying the nature of that conduct or the policy or custom which the conduct purportedly advanced” … . Martin v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06172, Second Dept 8-16-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ACTED PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR CUSTOM (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983  (42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ACTED PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR CUSTOM (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ACTED PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR CUSTOM (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ACTED PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR CUSTOM (SECOND DEPT))

FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment complaint was properly dismissed. Although plaintiff appeared at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, he did not answer all of the questions posed by the defendant city’s attorney and he did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. Because the 50-h hearing is a condition precedent to the suit against the city, dismissal was required:

The purpose of the statutory notice of claim requirement is to afford the public corporation an adequate opportunity to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding an alleged occurrence and to explore the merits of the claim while information is readily available … . The oral examination of the claimant pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h serves to supplement the notice of claim and provides an investigatory tool to the public corporation, with a view toward settlement… . “Compliance with a demand for a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a municipal defendant, and the failure to so comply warrants dismissal of the action”… .

Here, while the plaintiff appeared for the scheduled examination, he failed to answer many of the questions that were posed to him, and he never invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Since he failed to assert his privilege at the time he was relying on it, he was unable to benefit from it … . Even if the plaintiff had properly asserted his privilege, he was obligated to schedule a new General Municipal Law § 50-h examination after his criminal case ended, but he failed to do so … . Instead, the plaintiff simply commenced an action in January 2016 without indicating the status of the criminal charges. Di Pompo v City of Beacon Police Dept., 2017 NY Slip Op 06059, Second Dept 8-9-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (50-H HEARING, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/50-H HEARING (MUNICIPAL LAW, FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST (50-H HEARING, FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT (50-H HEARING, FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a question of fact precluded defendant-abutting-property-owner’s (51 Remsen’s] motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The NYC Administrative Law imposed the burden of keeping the sidewalk safe on the abutting property owner, but the curb was excluded from the property owner’s responsibility. Plaintiff testified there was a gap between the curb and the sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a) imposes a duty on “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk, including, but not limited to, the intersection quadrant for corner property, to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition,” and provides that the owner of said real property “shall be liable for any injury to property or personal injury, including death, proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “Sidewalk” is defined as “that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines, but not including the curb, intended for the use of pedestrians” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of 51 Remsen for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it…. 51 Remsen’s expert opined that while the sidewalk was in good condition, set properly, and free of tripping defects, the curb was “problematic” because it did not meet City Department of Transportation height regulations. The plaintiff, however, testified at his deposition that there was a “[l]ittle gap” between the curb and the sidewalk. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmovant …, 51 Remsen failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether it had a duty to maintain the area of the plaintiff’s fall, and whether the alleged dangerous sidewalk condition, i.e., an improper setback from the curb, was attributable to its negligence and contributed to the plaintiff’s fall … . Gelstein v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06064, Second Dept 8-9-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s (Queens Ballpark’s) motion to dismiss this slip and fall action, based on documentary evidence, was properly denied. The documents did not conclusively establish that defendant did not create the condition which caused the sidewalk slip and fall, and did not establish that had not assumed the landowner’s responsibility to maintain a safe sidewalk by the terms of the lease:

Pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a), “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk” has a duty “to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk[] . . . shall be liable for any injury to property or personal injury, including death, proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition” (id. § 7-210[b]). “As a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party”… . “However, where a lease agreement is so comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance as to entirely displace the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk, the tenant may be liable to a third party” … .

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by Queens Ballpark failed to utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law … . Further, Queens Ballpark failed to establish conclusively that the plaintiff had no cause of action … . In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Queens Ballpark created the alleged defect in the sidewalk, and that Queens Ballpark was liable pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-210 for failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe manner. Queens Ballpark’s evidence, namely, excerpts from its lease of the parking lot, photographs of the sidewalk, and an affidavit from the Executive Director of Ballpark Operations for Queens Ballpark, did not address whether Queens Ballpark created the alleged defect, or whether Queens Ballpark had entirely displaced the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk such that Queens Ballpark could be held liable to the plaintiff under Administrative Code § 7-210 … . Torres v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06096, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALK, MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALK, MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS,  MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the city’s petition to permanently stay arbitration was properly dismissed. The court described the criteria for determining whether a matter is arbitrable pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court further held that whether the underlying grievance was timely brought must be determined by the arbitrator because the CBA was silent on the issue. The city firefighters (Local 628) sought arbitration of whether medical treatment for line of duty injuries (General Municipal Law 207-a) was being unduly delayed or denied:

​

“In analyzing whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute, a court is merely to determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA'” … . Here, the relevant arbitration provisions of the CBA are broad, as they provide for arbitration of any grievance “involving the interpretation or application of any provision of this Agreement,” which remains unresolved following completion of step two of the grievance procedure. Moreover, there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute, which involves the processing of General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits to firefighters injured in the line of duty, and Appendix C of the CBA which sets forth the procedures regulating “the application for, and the award of, benefits under section 207-a of the General Municipal Law” … .

The City’s contention that arbitration was precluded because Local 628’s grievance was not timely pursuant to step one of the grievance procedure is without merit. The “threshold determination of whether a condition precedent to arbitration exists and whether it has been complied with, is for the court to determine” … . By contrast, “[q]uestions concerning compliance with a contractual step-by-step grievance process have been recognized as matters of procedural arbitrability to be resolved by the arbitrators, particularly in the absence of a very narrow arbitration clause or a provision expressly making compliance with the time limitations a condition precedent to arbitration” … . Matter of City of Yonkers v Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 2017 NY Slip Op 06073, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

ARBITRATION (UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ARBITRATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ARBITRATION, UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ARBITRATION, (UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT)) 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county did not demonstrate it did not create the obstruction of the sidewalk with snow and further did not demonstrate the obstruction was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff alleged the snow in the sidewalk forced her to walk in the street, where she was struck by a car:

” Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies'” … . As relevant here, an exception to the prior written notice laws exists where the municipality creates the defective condition through an affirmative act of negligence … . ” The prima facie showing that [a municipality is] obligated to make on its motion for summary judgment [is] governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff[ ] in the pleadings and bill of particulars'” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the County affirmatively caused or contributed to the dangerous condition through its snow plowing operations on Old Country Road that caused snow to be deposited onto the sidewalk. Therefore, to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the County was required to establish, prima facie, that it did not receive prior written notice of the dangerous condition and that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition … . Although the County demonstrated, prima facie, that it did not receive prior written notice, the County’s submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that its snow removal operations did not create or exacerbate a dangerous condition … .

The County also failed to make a prima facie showing that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. “Where the acts of a third person intervene between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury, the causal connection is not automatically severed” … . “An intervening act constitutes a superseding cause sufficient to relieve a defendant of liability if it is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct'” … . Where, however, “the intervening act is a natural and foreseeable consequence of a circumstance created by the defendant, the causal nexus is not severed and liability will subsist” … . The issue of whether an act is foreseeable is generally for the trier of fact … . Here, the County’s alleged negligent snow plowing operations contributed to the obstruction of the sidewalk, which prevented Piazza [plaintiff] from continuing to walk on the sidewalk, and caused her to walk in the roadway where she was hit by a vehicle driven by Volpe. Under these circumstances, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Volpe’s act in hitting Piazza with her vehicle was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the County’s alleged negligence. Piazza v Volpe, 2017 NY Slip Op 05986, Second Dept 8-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW,  PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a detailed, fact-based decision, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact in this medical malpractice action alleging the failure to timely diagnose the presence of cancer. The court noted that the proximate cause element can be satisfied by evidence early detection could have extended plaintiff’s decedent’s life, even if a total cure was not possible:

​

“In a medical malpractice action, where causation is often a difficult issue, a plaintiff need do no more than offer sufficient evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the injury was caused by the defendant” … . “As to causation, the plaintiff’s evidence may be deemed legally sufficient even if its expert cannot quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased his injury, as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased his injury”   * * * To raise a triable issue of fact, a plaintiff need not establish that, but for a defendant doctor’s failure to diagnose, the patient would have been cured. “Curing cancer, while an ultimate and worthy aspiration, is not the only positive treatment outcome. Whether a diagnostic delay affected a patient’s prognosis is typically an issue that should be presented to a jury” … . Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 8-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CAUSATION, CANCER, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT))/CANCER (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSATION, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action for negligent maintenance of a drainage system, causing flooding, properly survived summary judgment. The court noted that no cause of action lies against a municipality for negligent design of a drainage system. The court further noted that a nuisance cause of action should have been dismissed as duplicative of the negligent maintenance cause of action:

To the extent the plaintiff contends that the Village was negligent in failing to improve or renovate the drainage system, dismissal of that cause of action was properly directed. Evidence as to the Village’s alleged failure to undertake improvements or renovations to the facilities related only to the design of the system, for which the Village may not be held liable … .

However, the Village failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of eliminating all triable issues of fact as to whether it negligently maintained the culvert and drainage system. * * *

A defendant is subject to liability for a private nuisance if the defendant’s conduct is a legal cause of the invasion of an interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and such invasion is (1) intentional and unreasonable, (2) negligent or reckless, or (3) actionable under the rules governing liability for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities … . … A nuisance based on negligence is but a single wrong, whether characterized as negligence or nuisance … , and the plaintiff may recover only once for harm suffered, regardless of how the causes of action are denominated … . Since the complaint alleges a cause of action for negligent maintenance, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Village’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging nuisance as duplicative of the cause of action alleging negligent maintenance … . Trulio v Village of Ossining, 2017 NY Slip Op 05993, Second Dept 8-2-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (DRAINAGE SYSTEM, MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPALITY, DRAINAGE SYSTEM, MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DRAINAGE SYSTEM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/NUISANCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, DRAINAGE SYSTEM, MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION (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