You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 42 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under 18 USC 1983, against the county, for violation of his right to a speedy trial:

We reject the County’s argument that it cannot be held liable pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 for the alleged misconduct of the office of the District Attorney. Where, as here, a complaint alleges a failure to train and supervise employees regarding legal obligations, “liability for the District Attorney’s actions in his role as a manager of the District Attorney’s office rests with the county” …  and a claim pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 may therefore be maintained against the County for the conduct of the District Attorney’s office insofar as the District Attorney acted as a County policymaker … . Moreover, here, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the District Attorney’s office failed to train and supervise its assistant district attorneys with respect to the constitutional speedy trial rights of the accused persons with whom they interacted, to the extent that they manifested deliberate indifference to those rights … . Victor v County of Suffolk, 2017 NY Slip Op 03796, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (18 USC 1983) (SPEEDY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)/SPEEDY TRIAL (CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)

​

, ,

STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS.

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a state trooper, defendant Begeal, was entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case because he was immune from suit for his actions, which were discretionary. Plaintiff physician assistant was injured by a patient (Lacey) brought into the hospital by law enforcement officers, including Begeal. Plaintiff was kicked by the patient and alleged Begeal negligently failed to restrain the patient’s legs:

Although Begeal had access to plastic leg restraints, the undisputed evidence established that, at the time that he left the examination room, Lacey was still handcuffed, was “extremely calm” and had allowed a nurse to remove pieces of glass from his feet without kicking or otherwise resisting the nurse’s efforts. Begeal thus made a “reasoned judgment” not to utilize the leg restraints … . Accordingly, “[t]he decision to employ [only handcuffs] was a discretionary one . . ., and [Begeal] may not be held liable for that determination” … . …

Begeal’s decision to leave the examination room to permit the medical personnel to examine Lacey in private was likewise discretionary. Although Lacey was combative when he first arrived at the hospital, Begeal did not leave the examination room until approximately 20 minutes after that time and only after ensuring that Lacey had calmed down. Based on these circumstances, Begeal “did not feel that [the hospital personnel and Feeney] were in any immediate danger” and concluded that he could safely leave the room and go to the main area in order to, among other things, wash off Lacey’s blood from his clothes. While Begeal’s judgment call proved to be incorrect, “it is not for courts to second-guess the wisdom of discretionary governmental choices, troubling though they may sometimes seem in the glaring clarity of hindsight” … . Feeney v County of Del., 2017 NY Slip Op 03583, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)

,

NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED.

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a notice of claim which named the correct party (New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA]) and address but mistakenly indicated the “Comptroller” of the NYCHA on the mailed envelope, was properly served. The envelope was misdirected to the Comptroller of the City of New York, despite the fact that the comptroller is at an entirely different address than that on the envelope:

As pertinent to this appeal, General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) provides that the notice of claim should be mailed “to the person designated by law as one to whom a summons in an action . . . may be delivered.” Although the statute requires that the notice be mailed to the designated “person,” this generally refers to the public authority or government entity itself rather than a particular person employed thereby … . Here, there is no real dispute that simply writing “NYCHA” on the envelope would have satisfied the requirements of the statute.

Further, while NYCHA contends that there is no such person or entity as the “Comptroller of the NYCHA,” a “comptroller” is simply an officer of a municipal corporation, like NYCHA, “who is charged with duties [usually] relating to fiscal affairs, including auditing and examining accounts and reporting the financial status periodically” (Black’s Law Dictionary 347 [10th ed 2014]). In any event, the minor misnomer on the envelope need not be fatal to the action, especially where, as here, the plaintiff’s attorney properly mailed the same notice of claim form to both the Comptroller and NYCHA in order to assert a claim against both the City of New York and NYCHA, and the notice of claim itself named NYCHA.

Under these circumstances, we find that the envelope was properly addressed within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(b) and the plaintiff properly served the notice of claim upon NYCHA within the requisite 90-day statutory period … . Carroll v City of New York. 2017 NY Slip Op 03148, 2nd Dept 4-26-2017

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)

,

COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED FAILURE TO CLEAN UP LOOSE GRAVEL IN A BIKE PATH AFTER PATCHING A HOLE CAUSED THE BICYCLE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined defendant county was not entitled to summary judgment in this bicycle accident case. Plaintiffs alleged the county left loose gravel in the bike path after patching a hole (the loose gravel allegedly caused the accident). The written notice requirement did not apply because it was alleged the county created the dangerous condition. The primary assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply, The defect was not demonstrated to be trivial. The open and obvious defense applies only to the duty to warn, not the duty to make the property safe:

​

The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the County defendants affirmatively created the dangerous condition by leaving excess patching material at the scene of the repair. Affirmative creation is an exception to the County’s prior written notice ordinance  … . Thus, in order to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the County defendants were required to submit evidence that they did not affirmatively create the defect as the plaintiffs alleged … . The County defendants failed to meet this burden … . Fornuto v County of Nassau. 2017 NY Slip Op 02969, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED FAILURE TO CLEAN UP LOOSE GRAVEL IN A BIKE PATH AFTER PATCHING A HOLE CAUSED THE BICYCLE ACCIDENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED FAILURE TO CLEAN UP LOOSE GRAVEL IN A BIKE PATH AFTER PATCHING A HOLE CAUSED THE BICYCLE ACCIDENT)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFENSE (APPLIES ONLY TO DUTY TO WARN, NOT DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY SAFE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED FAILURE TO CLEAN UP LOOSE GRAVEL IN A BIKE PATH AFTER PATCHING A HOLE CAUSED THE BICYCLE ACCIDENT)

, ,

NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation was properly denied. A notice of claim cannot be amended by adding a new injury theory of liability:

​

A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability … . Here, the proposed amendments to the notice of claim asserted a new injury and added a new theory of liability … . These amendments were not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . Castillo v Kings County Hosp. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 02962, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY)

,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING.

The Second Department determined a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation for conscious pain and suffering was properly denied. The court determined the hospital was not timely put on notice of the claim simply by its possession of the decedent’s hospital records:

​

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering within the requisite 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter by virtue of its possession of hospital records relating to the decedent’s death … . A medical provider’s mere possession or creation of medical records does not establish that it had “actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury on” the claimant … . Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the lengthy delay in filing the petition … . Even assuming that the petitioner met its initial burden to show that the late notice will not substantially prejudice the respondent, and that the respondent failed to make “a particularized evidentiary showing that [it] will be substantially prejudiced if the late notice is allowed” in response … , upon consideration of the balance of the relevant factors (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to serve a late notice of claim with respect to the cause of action alleging conscious pain and suffering … . Matter of Rosenblatt v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 03004. 1st Dept 4-19-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S HOSPITAL RECORDS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE HOSPITAL’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM)

, , , ,

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.

The Second Department, in a lawsuit stemming from the flooding of plaintiffs’ land, explained the differences between contribution and indemnification and noted that corporate officers may be personally liable for torts committed in their performance of corporate duties:

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the Village of East Hills after they experienced flooding on their property from rainwater. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action sounding in tort, alleging that the flooding resulted from the development of land near their property, which was authorized by the Village. The Village commenced a third-party action seeking indemnification and contribution against A to Z Transit Contracting Corp., the project manager that constructed the plaintiffs’ home, as well as its principal, David Ferdinand, architect Carl Majowka, who prepared plans for the construction of the plaintiffs’ home, and Scott Anderson, the principal of Scott Anderson Design, Inc., which performed landscaping work for the plaintiffs’ home. * * *

“[C]ontribution arises automatically when certain factors are present and [does] not requir[e] any kind of agreement between or among the wrongdoers'” … . ” Indemnity, on the other hand, arises out of a contract which may be express or may be implied in law “to prevent a result which is regarded as unjust or unsatisfactory”‘” … . “Further, “[w]here one is held liable solely on account of the negligence of another, indemnification, not contribution, principles apply to shift the entire liability to the one who was negligent.” . . . Conversely, where a party is held liable at least partially because of its own negligence, contribution against other culpable tort-feasors is the only available remedy'”… . “Whether indemnity or contribution applies depends not upon the parties’ designation but upon a careful analysis of the theory of recovery against each tort-feasor'”       * * *

Although “[c]orporate officers may not be held personally liable on contracts of their corporations, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually under such contracts” … , “corporate officers may be held personally liable for torts committed in the performance of their corporate duties'” … . Eisman v Village of E. Hills. 2017 NY Slip Op 02775, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CONTRACT LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CORPORATION LAW  (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)

,

APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF ADEQUATE EXCUSE.

The Second Department determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted, despite the lack of an adequate excuse. The respondent city’s employees were involved in the accident and the police report alerted the city to a potential lawsuit:

​

Here, the City of New York acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the accident, since its employees were directly involved in the accident, and the police accident report gave reasonable notice from which it could be inferred that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the City and that the petitioner was injured as a result thereof … . Furthermore, the City received a late notice of claim 22 days after the expiration of the 90-day period, which it accepted, and informed the petitioner that it would do its best to investigate and, if possible, settle the claim … .

​

Moreover, the petitioner made an initial showing that the City was not substantially prejudiced, since the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim through the police accident report and became aware of the negligence claim less than one month after the expiration of the 90-day period … . Matter of Cruz v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02789, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

​

MUNICIPAL LAW (APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF ADEQUATE EXCUSE)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF ADEQUATE EXCUSE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF ADEQUATE EXCUSE)

,

FAIR MARKET RENT APPEAL PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, affirmed the dismissal of an Article 78 petition seeking a ruling on the status of petitioners’ apartment and the legality of the rent:

​

The disputes before us arise from the Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) petitioners filed with respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), implicating both the regulatory status of their apartment and the legality of the rent they were charged from the time they first took occupancy in 2010.

The DHCR decision being challenged in this article 78 proceeding denied the FMRA as untimely because it was filed more than four years after the apartment was no longer subject to the rent control laws following the death of the previous tenant in 2004. DHCR rejected petitioners’ contention that the applicable statute of limitations should be disregarded because the owner had engaged in fraud. DHCR also rejected petitioners’ claim that the owner’s late notices and/or registrations had extended the time period within which petitioners could file an FMRA challenging the owner’s efforts to set an initial rent following the apartment’s removal from rent control. Finally, on the merits, DHCR concluded that petitioners were not entitled to either a rent-regulated apartment or regulated rent because in 2010, when they first took occupancy, the apartment was no longer receiving any J-51 tax benefits and had become vacant at a time when the legal vacancy rent clearly exceeded $2,000 per month, an amount sufficient to make it high-rent/vacancy, “luxury” decontrolled … . Matter of Park v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 1st Dept 4-6-17

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (FAIR MARKET RENT APPEAL PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, FAIR MARKET RENT APPEAL PROPERLY DISMISSED)/FAIR MARKET RENTAL APPEAL (NYC, LANDLORD-TENANT, FAIR MARKET RENT APPEAL PROPERLY DISMISSED)

,

EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK DEFECT DEVELOPED OVER TIME DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT AROSE UPON INSTALLATION, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined demonstrating that a sidewalk defect developed over time is not sufficient to raise a question of fact whether the defect was there upon installation of the sidewalk:

​

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, evidence suggesting that the defendant actually knew of the alleged defect did not satisfy the requirement in Village of Scarsdale Local Law § 209-1 that prior written notice of the alleged defect be given to the Village Clerk … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the affirmative negligence exception, as she did not identify any evidence demonstrating that the allegedly defective condition arose immediately upon installation … . The plaintiff’s evidence, which includes an expert affidavit and statements by Village officials, at most established that environmental effects created the alleged defect over time, which is not sufficient to establish the defendant’s liability … . Beiner v Village of Scarsdale, 2017 NY Slip Op 02617, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

Same issues and result in Loghry v Village of Scarsdale, 2017 NY Slip Op 02635, 2nd Dept 4-5

 

NEGLIGENCE (EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK DEFECT DEVELOPED OVER TIME DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT AROSE UPON INSTALLATION, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK DEFECT DEVELOPED OVER TIME DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT AROSE UPON INSTALLATION, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK DEFECT DEVELOPED OVER TIME DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT AROSE UPON INSTALLATION, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK DEFECT DEVELOPED OVER TIME DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT AROSE UPON INSTALLATION, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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