Municipal Law – Page 92 – New York Appellate Digest

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment was properly dismissed in this traffic accident case involving a police car. The court held that the officer was engaged in an emergency operation when he went through a red light at an intersection and struck plaintiff’s car. Even if the siren and emergency lights were not on, the officer was authorized to proceed through the intersection:

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since the record shows that defendant Kohler, a police officer, was operating a police vehicle while performing an emergency operation and did not recklessly disregard the safety of others before the accident happened … . The fact that Koehler was mistaken in believing that plaintiff was stopping her vehicle when he proceeded to pass through the red light did not render his conduct reckless. Koehler testified that as he approached the intersection, he reduced his speed and looked left and right. He was traveling approximately 10 miles above the speed limit when the accident occurred. Koehler attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiff by braking hard and turning the steering wheel to the right upon realizing that plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the intersection … . The fact that there is a question as to whether the police vehicle’s lights and siren were activated is not material because Koehler was not required to activate either of these devices in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of passing through a red light … . Lewis v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 07785, First Dept 11-9-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY OPERATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/SIREN (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY LIGHTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))

November 9, 2017

Environmental Law, Municipal Law, Zoning

PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (in part) Supreme Court, determined the town planning board did not take the requisite “hard look” at the combined effect of the proposed development and the proximity of the development to a gas line. Therefore a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required. Petitioners arguments that the proposed development conflicted with the town’s comprehensive plan and constituted prohibited spot zoning were rejected:

… [W]e agree with the petitioner’s contention that the Town Board failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impact of placing the proposed development in close proximity to the existing Columbia Gas pipeline, and the combined environmental impact of the pipeline and the development together. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter DEIS) contains only a brief mention of the pipeline which bisects the property, and Columbia Gas was omitted from the list of “interested agencies.” In addition, there is nothing in the Town Board’s determinations that suggests that it considered these issues outside the context of the DEIS and the final environmental impact statement (hereinafter FEIS), and they are not discussed in the Town’s SEQRA findings statement. Thus, the record supports the petitioner’s contention that the Town Board did not take a “hard look” at these issues or make a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its determination regarding them … , and the Supreme Court should have annulled the Town Board’s determination resolving to approve the findings statement pursuant to SEQRA for the proposed zone change. Matter of Youngewirth v Town of Ramapo Town Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 07744, Second Dept 11-8-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ZONING, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))

November 8, 2017

Environmental Law, Land Use, Municipal Law, Zoning

PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board’s approval of the development of land should be annulled. The land included wetlands which required an investigation and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and those requirements had not been met. The petitioners’ request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) should have been granted:

“A lead agency’s determination whether to require a SEIS . . . is discretionary” … . “The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: (a) changes proposed for the project; (b) newly discovered information; or (c) a change in circumstances related to the project” … . “The decision to prepare a SEIS as a result of newly discovered information must be based upon . . . (a) the importance and relevance of the information; and (b) the present state of the information in the EIS'” … . The limitations that apply to a court’s review of an agency’s SEQRA determination, that is, only to ascertain whether the agency took a hard look at the relevant areas of environmental concern and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination, also apply to the agency’s determination regarding whether a SEIS is needed, and the court may no more substitute its judgment on this point than it may on other aspects of agency decision-making … .

Here, the petitioners contend that a SEIS is needed because Scenic never obtained a jurisdictional determination from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter ACOE) validating [the developer’s] delineation of wetlands on the subject property. They argue that, prior to issuing the determinations challenged on appeal, the Planning Board was presented with critical new evidence demonstrating that no jurisdictional determination had been issued by the ACOE for the subject property. The petitioners are correct. Matter of Shapiro v Planning Bd. of the Town of Ramapo, 2017 NY Slip Op 07734, Second Dept 11-8-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/WETLANDS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WETLANDS, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

November 8, 2017

Arbitration, Employment Law, Municipal Law

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner-county’s motion to permanently stay arbitration should not have been granted. The respondent-union filed a grievance on behalf of a part-time sheriff’s dispatcher when another dispatcher was made full-time:

The Court of Appeals has set forth a two-pronged test to determine “whether a grievance is arbitrable” (Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [Johnstown] …). In the first prong of the test, known as “the may-they-arbitrate’ prong,” we “ask whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” … . If we conclude that arbitration is not prohibited, we move to the second prong, known as “the did-they-agree-to-arbitrate’ prong,” in which we “examine the CBA to determine if the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue” … .

Here, petitioner does not contend that arbitration of [the dispatcher’s] grievance is prohibited, and we therefore are concerned only with the second prong of the Johnstown test. With respect to that issue, “[i]t is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, the court is concerned only with the threshold determination of arbitrability, and not with the merits of the underlying claim”… . Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, there is a broad arbitration clause and a reasonable relationship’ between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties’ [CBA], the court should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the [CBA], and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them’ ” … . Matter of Lewis County (CSEA Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Lewis County Sheriff’s Empls. Unit #7250-03, Lewis County Local 825), 2017 NY Slip Op 06743, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

ARBITRATION (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ARBITRATION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/UNIONS (ARBITRATION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

September 29, 2017

Municipal Law, Negligence

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff (Kelly) should not have been allowed to file a late notice of claim in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No reasonable explanation was offered and defendant housing authority did not have timely notice of the substance of the claim:

… Kelly failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority]. Kelly’s excuse, that he first discovered the identity of the owner of the subject walkway at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, arose from a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter, which is an unacceptable excuse … . Even if Kelly made an excusable error in identifying the public corporation upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, he failed to proffer any explanation for the additional seven-month delay between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

Furthermore, NYCHA did not acquire timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting Kelly’s claim. Although the City was served with a notice of claim within 90 days after the accident and conducted a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing about 5½ months after the accident, notice to the City cannot be imputed to NYCHA … . Moreover, the notice of claim, served together with the application upon NYCHA almost 10 months after the 90-day statutory period had elapsed, was served too late to provide NYCHA with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … .

Finally, Kelly presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that his delay in serving a notice of claim upon NYCHA did not substantially prejudice NYCHA in defending on the merits … . Kelly v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06640, Second Dept 9-27-17

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

September 27, 2017

Municipal Law, Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against a police officer whose police car struck plaintiff should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was standing in the road at the double yellow lines when the officer, responding to an emergency call, moved over the double yellow line:

Defendants demonstrated that defendant police officer was engaged in an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, by submitting evidence that the officer was responding to a radio call about a “man with a gun” when her police vehicle struck plaintiff … . Defendants’ evidence also showed that the officer was engaged in conduct privileged under the statute at the time of the accident, since her vehicle straddled and then crossed the double yellow lines, in disregard of regulations “governing directions of movement” (VTL § 1104[b][4]). Accordingly, defendants demonstrated that the officer’s conduct is to be assessed under the statute’s “reckless disregard” standard… .

Defendants further demonstrated that the officer did not operate the police vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others … . The officer testified that traffic warranted moving her vehicle left and operating it on the double yellow lines to avoid the stopped vehicles to her right and ahead of her. The officer had no duty to engage her sirens or lights, as she was operating a police vehicle, and her failure to do so was not evidence of recklessness …. Moreover, the officer testified that she attempted to avoid plaintiff, who was standing on the double yellow lines, by swerving behind her, an assertion that plaintiff supported with her own testimony … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that there was no emergency, and failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others. Green v Zarella, 2017 NY Slip Op 06599, First Dept 9-26-1

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, RECKLESS DISREGARD, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, (POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

September 26, 2017

Landlord-Tenant, Municipal Law

PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined petitioner’s rent subsidy benefits under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program should not have been terminated. The termination was based upon the presence of petitioner’s former intimate partner, McGill, in the home. Petitioner demonstrated that McGill, who was abusive and whose presence was unwanted, was staying in the home without her permission. Termination of the rent subsidy benefits was deemed to violate the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA):

After an administrative hearing, the determination to terminate [petitioner’s] benefits was confirmed based upon the finding that she was obligated, but failed, to request permission to add … McGill as an occupant to her subsidized apartment. … [T]he petitioner was entitled to the housing protections of the Violence Against Women Act … based upon uncontested hearing evidence establishing that she was subjected to an escalating pattern of stalking and abusive behavior and domestic violence by McGill, … whose course of abusive and violent conduct against her included his unwanted presence in her apartment. … [W]e conclude that [petitioner] was entitled to the housing protections of the VAWA, which prohibited her termination from the program on this ground … . Matter of Johnson v Palumbo, 2017 NY Slip Op 06534, 2nd Dept 9-20-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, RENT SUBSIDY, PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))/RENT SUBSIDY (PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))/SECTION 8 (PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))

September 20, 2017

Civil Rights Law, Municipal Law

EXCESSIVE FORCE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ 42 USC 1983 causes of action against the police and the municipality were properly dismissed. Placing handcuffs on the plaintiffs during the execution of a search warrant did not constitute excessive force. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate the municipality was implementing an unconstitutional policy:

… [T]he officers’ use of force while executing the search warrant was reasonable. Handcuffing the plaintiff and her two teenaged sons for the duration of the search was reasonable under the circumstances, given that the officers did not know who they might encounter or whether any occupants of the house might have weapons … . The fact that the plaintiff was not named as a subject of the warrant did not render the conduct of the police objectively unreasonable … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the propriety of the level of force used by the police in executing the search warrant. Additionally, “a plaintiff must have sustained some injury to maintain a claim of excessive force, although that injury need not be severe” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she or any of her children sustained an injury as a result of being handcuffed or detained during the search … . …

” [A] 42 USC § 1983 action may lie against a municipality if the plaintiff shows that the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional either implement[s] or execute[s] a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers or has occurred pursuant to a practice so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law'” … . However, a municipality “cannot be held liable pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 based solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liability”… . Here, in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing, the plaintiff’s conclusory assertions failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged unconstitutional actions resulted from a policy, regulation, or custom of the City … . Harris v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06527, 2nd Dept 9-20-17

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983, EXCESSIVE FORCE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (42 USC 1983, EXCESSIVE FORCE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE (42 USC 1983, EXCESSIVE FORCE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/EXCESSIVE FORCE (42 USC 1983, EXCESSIVE FORCE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

September 20, 2017

Municipal Law, Real Property Law

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff had complied with the relevant regulations such that summary judgment was warranted in this excavation-damage action:

New York City Building Code … § BC 3309.4 provides that “[w]henever soil or foundation work occurs, regardless of the depth of such, the person who causes such to be made shall, at all times during the course of such work and at his or her own expense, preserve and protect from damage any adjoining structures, including but not limited to footings and foundations, provided such person is afforded a license in accordance with the requirements of Section 3309.2 to enter and inspect the adjoining buildings and property, and to perform such work thereon as may be necessary for such purpose. If the person who causes the soil or foundation work is not afforded a license, such duty to preserve and protect the adjacent property shall devolve to the owner of such adjoining property, who shall be afforded a similar license with respect to the property where the soil or foundation work is to be made.”

We have held that section 3309.4 imposes strict or absolute liability upon a ” person who causes’ an excavation to be made” … . Nonetheless, on this record, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against [defendant], as the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that she granted [the defendant] the requisite license under section 3309.4 … or, in the absence of a license, what, if any, actions the plaintiff took to satisfy her duty under section 3309.4 to protect and preserve her property … . Chan v Begum, 2017 NY Slip Op 06425, Second Dept 9-13-17

REAL PROPERTY (NYC, EXCAVATION DAMAGE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, EXCAVATION PROPERTY DAMAGE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)/EXCAVATION DAMAGE (REAL PROPERTY, NYC, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

September 13, 2017

Medical Malpractice, Municipal Law, Negligence

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for permission to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged medical malpractice in the treatment of cervical cancer. The Second Department found that the medical records themselves timely alerted the defendant municipal hospital (NHCC) to the nature of the malpractice claim. Therefore the hospital was not prejudiced by the delay in filing the notice of claim:

“Merely having or creating hospital records, without more, does not establish actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury” … . “Where the alleged malpractice is apparent from an independent review of the medical records, those records constitute actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim'” … .

Here, in support of the petition, the decedent submitted medical records and an affidavit of a physician who reviewed the records and concluded that there had been a departure from accepted medical practice … . Inasmuch as the medical records, upon independent review, suggested injury attributable to malpractice, they provided NHCC with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Furthermore, the petitioner made an initial showing that NHCC would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving a notice of claim, and NHCC failed to rebut the petitioner’s showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … . … [T]he lack of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive where there is actual notice and absence of prejudice …. . Matter of Breslin v Nassau Health Care Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06440, Second Dept 9-13-17

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))