You are here: / Municipal Law
,

NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the NYC Transit Authority in this slip and fall case. The Transit Authority is responsible for the maintenance of manhole covers in city sidewalks. The evidence raised a question of fact whether the defect in the sidewalk was within the area around the manhole for which the Transit Authority is responsible:

​

Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2-07(b) provides that owners of covers or gratings on a street, which includes the sidewalk, are responsible for monitoring the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending 12 inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware, and for ensuring that the hardware is flush with the surrounding surface … . In support of its motion, the Transit Authority submitted, among other things, the plaintiff’s notice of claim with photographs depicting the accident location, her testimony at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, and her deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the alleged defective portion of the sidewalk was in close proximity to a manhole cover. Regardless of whether the Transit Authority owned the subject sidewalk, it failed to establish the absence of any triable issues of fact as to whether it owned the subject manhole cover or whether the plaintiff fell within the manhole cover owner’s zone of responsibility … . Nyack v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06445, Second Dept 9-13-17

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/MANHOLE COVERS (SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to grant summary judgment dismissing a portion of the complaint which alleged inadequate lighting as a cause of plaintiff’s slip and fall.  Plaintiff alleged she tripped over a rolled up mat after voting at an elementary school:

​

The test of the sufficiency of a notice of claim is whether it includes information sufficient to enable the municipality to investigate the claim … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ notice of claim, which set forth [plaintiff] was “caused to fall as a result of a rolled up mat” which was positioned several feet in front of the door inside Hiawatha Elementary School, included information which was sufficient to enable the defendants to investigate the claim. * * *

​

Here, testimony at the hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, which established the lighting conditions at the time and place of [plaintiff’s] accident, supplemented the notice of claim and provided the defendants with additional information regarding the manner in which the claim arose … . Moreover, an incident report prepared by the defendants’ employee shortly after [plaintiff’s] accident noted that the area where she fell was dark due to a power loss at the building. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs’ bill of particulars, which alleged, inter alia, that the occurrence and resulting injury were caused by the defendants’ negligence in “placing a rolled up mat in the walkway in a poorly lit area in front of the exit from the school” did not substantially alter the nature of the plaintiffs’ claim. * * *

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the power outage did not relieve them of their duty to address the allegedly dangerous condition created by the loss of power which may have obscured the mat from view … . Moreover, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the rolled up mat was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law … . Lipani v Hiawatha Elementary Sch., 2017 NY Slip Op 06436, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/LIGHTING (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))

,

42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s 42 USC 1983 cause of action, as well as the malicious prosecution cause of action, should not have been dismissed. The court noted that the notice of claim need not name any individual police officers who are subsequently sued (acknowledging a split of authority on the issue). The court also explained the statutes of limitations as they apply to false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and 42 USC 1983 causes of action:

The complaint alleged that the defendants arrested, detained, and prosecuted the plaintiff without probable cause and that they knew that the criminal complaint contained falsehoods. The eyewitness’s affidavit … supported these allegations by asserting that police and an ADA coerced the eyewitness to make a false identification of the plaintiff. …

Further, … the eyewitness’s affidavit did not present feigned issues of fact. The eyewitness did not give any prior testimony in this action … . … [H]is affidavit did not contradict the plaintiff’s prior testimony, including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the eyewitness was “scared” when the police talked to him about the shooting. …

[T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Detective Failla’s evaluation of probable cause was objectively reasonable, thus precluding an award of summary judgment in Detective Failla’s favor on the ground of qualified immunity … .

… [W]e have held that the plain language of General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) does not require a notice of claim to “[list] the names of the individuals who allegedly committed the wrongdoing” … . Williams v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06477, Second Dept 9-13-17

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983 (42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, 42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS NEED NOT BE NAMED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST (42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT (42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant town’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case was properly granted. The court held that the failure to remove ice and snow is a passive in nature and is not an affirmative creation of a dangerous condition that is exempt from the written notice requirement:

Here, the Town established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including an affidavit from its Town Clerk, demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the condition alleged, and that it did not create the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town created the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. The plaintiff’s reliance on San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco (16 NY3d 111) is misplaced. The Town’s failure to remove any snow or ice from the area where the subject accident occurred was passive in nature and does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence excepting it from prior written notice requirements … . Morreale v Town of Smithtown, 2017 NY Slip Op 06361, Second Dept 8-30-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT)/WRITTEN NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE, TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city had acquired title by adverse possession to a parcel purchased by plaintiff’s predecessors in 1948. The fact that plaintiff had continuously paid taxes on the property did not negate the proof of adverse possession:

In 1948, the plaintiff’s predecessors in interest purchased real property in Brooklyn. For at least 30 years, the subject property, which is in the middle of other lots owned by the defendant, City of New York, has been used by the New York City Department of Sanitation (hereinafter the DSNY) as a truck parking lot. During this time, the DSNY has paved the property, fenced it in, and installed lighting. * * *

Under the law before the 2008 amendments, in order to establish a claim to property by adverse possession, a claimant must prove, inter alia, that possession of the property was: (1) hostile and under a claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the required period … .

The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the “unequivocal acts of the usurper”… . A rebuttable presumption of hostility arises from possession accompanied by the usual acts of ownership, and this presumption continues until the possession is shown to be subservient to the title of another … . “Hostility can be inferred simply from the existence of the remaining four elements, thus shifting the burden to the record owner to produce evidence rebutting the presumption of adversity” … .

… We conclude that the mere payment of taxes on the subject property is insufficient to rebut the presumption. Even assuming that knowledge of the true ownership of the property can be imputed to another municipal department in the City, such knowledge is not sufficient to defeat a claim of adverse possession … . Estate of Vertley Clanton v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06254, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (ADVERSE POSSESSION, CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE POSSESSION (CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ADVERSE POSSESSION, CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that residents of a condominium across the street from the proposed construction of beach-front comfort stations did not have standing to contest the construction under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court further found that the petitioners’ air, light and access easements could not be asserted against the state, which owns the public road where the construction will be located:

“To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show (1) an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … . The alleged harm cannot be “too speculative and conjectural to demonstrate an actual and specific injury-in-fact” … . Close proximity alone is insufficient to confer standing where there are no zoning issues involved, and general environmental concerns will not suffice … . Moreover, “[t]o qualify for standing to raise a SEQRA challenge, a party must demonstrate that it will suffer an injury that is environmental and not solely economic in nature” … . Here, the petitioners’ alleged environmentally related injuries are too speculative and conjectural to demonstrate an actual and specific injury-in-fact … .

“When lands adjoin private property an easement of light, air and access over such property does not exist, under ordinary circumstances, merely because of the proximity of the lands to the private property” … .. However, an owner of land abutting a highway or street possesses, as incident to his or her ownership, easements of light, air, and access, irrespective of whether the owner owns the fee of the highway or the street itself … . Nevertheless, “[w]hen the fee of the highway has been transferred to the State, the State may use the highway for any public purpose not inconsistent with or prejudicial to its use for highway purposes . . . [and] [t]he mere disturbance of the rights of light, air and access of abutting owners on such a highway by the imposition of a new use, consistent with its use as an open public street, must be tolerated by them and no right of action arises therefrom, although such use interferes with the enjoyment of the premises”… . For example, the maintenance of trees on a street for the purposes of ornament and shade has been determined to be a proper street use … .

Here, the proposed construction will not completely block the petitioners’ ocean view nor prevent the petitioners from using the public street. Rather, the length of the dead-end street will be shortened and several public parking spaces will be removed. The turnaround will still be intact, although moved 23 feet to the north, and access to the petitioners’ driveway and building’s entrance will not be impeded … . In addition, the disputed comfort station will be open to, and for the purpose of, serving the public … . Matter of Shapiro v Torres, 2017 NY Slip Op 06281, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/EASEMENTS (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/AIR LIGHT AND ACCESS  (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (STANDING, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (STANDING, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/HIGHWAYS (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY (SECOND DEPT).

,

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))

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