You are here: / Municipal Law
,

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)

, , ,

HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the defendant city’s motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law should have been granted (criteria explained). Plaintiff, a 72-year-old woman (who was not named in the search warrant) was handcuffed while the police searched her house. Plaintiff alleged she suffered anxiety-related symptoms but no physical injury. Only the excessive force cause of action went to the jury. The Second Department held that physical injury, not emotional injury, was required, and further held that qualified immunity applied to the act of placing her in handcuffs (which was deemed reasonable):

Here, although the plaintiff did not resist or attempt to flee, the actions of the officers were reasonable given that they had reason to believe that illegal drugs were being sold from the premises, and that a known drug dealer might be present. Under the circumstances, where the police were executing a search warrant to find illegal drugs and did not know who they might encounter or whether any occupants of the house might have weapons, it was reasonable for them to handcuff the plaintiff for a few minutes until they determined that she was not a threat, notwithstanding her age at the time of the incident. …

Furthermore, a plaintiff must have sustained some injury to maintain a claim of excessive force, although that injury need not be severe … . Emotional pain and suffering cannot form the basis of an excessive force claim … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that she sustained any injury that resulted from the act of handcuffing her … . Boyd v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02619, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (18 USC 1983) (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITYS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/IMMUNITY  (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/POLICE (HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EXCESSIVE FORCE (POLICE, HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

THE REASONABLENESS OF THE COSTS OF TEMPORARILY RELOCATING A TENANT FORCED TO VACATE AN UNINHABITABLE BUILDING MUST BE DETERMINED IN A LIEN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE LIEN CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DISCHARGED BY FINDING THE COSTS AS STATED IN THE NOTICE OF LIEN FACIALLY UNREASONABLE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, resolving a conflict between the 1st and 2nd Departments, determined a dispute about the reasonableness of the costs of temporarily relocating a tenant forced to vacate an uninhabitable building, as stated in a Notice of Lien, is not subject to summary disposition but rather must be resolved in a foreclosure proceeding. The 1st Department had erroneously held that such a lien imposed by the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) could be summarily discharged if the relocation costs stated in the Notice of Lien were deemed unreasonable:

Facial invalidity [of a Notice of Lien] occurs only in limited circumstances not present here. In both cases at issue, the notices of lien contained all required elements under Lien Law § 9 and Administrative Code § 26-305 (4) (a) and were properly filed. While summary discharge is proper when a notice of lien includes non-lienable expenses … , the notices of lien here demonstrated no such defect. The notices stated that they sought “hotel expenses,” “administration costs,” and “relocation costs,” which sufficed to meet the requirement that the notice contain a statement of “the labor performed or materials furnished.” Rather than challenge those categories of expenses as “lienable,” both [property owners] object to the amount claimed for such expenses. Such a dispute is not properly resolved through a summary discharge proceeding. Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 02587, CtApp 4-4-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (NYC, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE COSTS OF TEMPORARILY RELOCATING A TENANT FORCED TO VACATE AN UNINHABITABLE BUILDING MUST BE DETERMINED IN A LIEN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE LIEN CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DISCHARGED BY FINDING THE COSTS AS STATED IN THE NOTICE OF LIEN FACIALLY UNREASONABLE)/LIEN LAW (NYC, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE COSTS OF TEMPORARILY RELOCATING A TENANT FORCED TO VACATE AN UNINHABITABLE BUILDING MUST BE DETERMINED IN A LIEN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE LIEN CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DISCHARGED BY FINDING THE COSTS AS STATED IN THE NOTICE OF LIEN FACIALLY UNREASONABLE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE COSTS OF TEMPORARILY RELOCATING A TENANT FORCED TO VACATE AN UNINHABITABLE BUILDING MUST BE DETERMINED IN A LIEN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE LIEN CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DISCHARGED BY FINDING THE COSTS AS STATED IN THE NOTICE OF LIEN FACIALLY UNREASONABLE)

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