You are here: / Municipal Law
, , , ,

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)

,

19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT.

The Second Department determined a 19-year-old notice of claim did not meet the written notice requirement for a sidewalk defect in this slip and fall case:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) limits the City’s duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for those defects or hazardous conditions which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location” … . Accordingly, “prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City” … .

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that a search of its records revealed that it had not received any prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “To satisfy a prior written notice statute, the notice relied upon by a plaintiff must not be too remote in time” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submission of a notice of claim, filed almost 19 years prior to the accident complained of, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact since it was too remote in time to constitute prior written notice within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) … . Gellman v Cooke, 2017 NY Slip Op 02404, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

SECOND DEPARTMENT JOINS THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS IN HOLDING INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES NEED NOT BE NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM.

The Second Department decided to follow the Third and Fourth Departments and did not require the naming of individual municipal employees as defendants in a notice of claim. The decision in this false arrest, malicious prosecution and civil rights violation case is substantive and deals with several issues not summarized here, including the District Attorney’s immunity from suit. With respect to the notice of claim, the court wrote:

The Appellate Division, First Department, has held that “General Municipal Law § 50-e makes unauthorized an action against individuals who have not been named in a notice of claim” … . * * * The plurality opinion in that case stated that the names of individual employees, if unknown, should still be named as John or Jane Does to enable the municipality to properly investigate the claims and to put individual defendants on notice that they will be sued. …

In contrast, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has held that naming individual municipal employees in a notice of claim is not a condition precedent to joining those individuals as defendants in the action … . In Goodwin, the Fourth Department noted that General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), which sets forth the requirements for a notice of claim, does not include a requirement that specific individual employees be named, and concluded that “[t]he underlying purpose of the statute may be served without requiring a plaintiff to name the individual agents, officers or employees in the notice of claim” (id. at 216). In Pierce v Hickey (129 AD3d 1287, 1289), the Appellate Division, Third Department, followed Goodwin, stating that there was no requirement that “an individual municipal employee be named in the notice of claim.”

We agree with the Third and Fourth Departments. * * * Listing the names of the individuals who allegedly committed the wrongdoing is not required … . Blake v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02399, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

, ,

THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 BEGAN TO RUN UPON ARRAIGNMENT.

The First Department noted that the three year statute of limitations for a false arrest cause of action under 42 USC 1983 began to run upon arraignment:

The three-year limitations period on a section 1983 claim based on false arrest begins to run “when the alleged false imprisonment ends” — that is, when the arrestee becomes subject to the legal process such as being “bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges” … . Here, because plaintiff was arraigned on July 16, 2011, the limitations period on his section 1983 claim based on false arrest ended on July 16, 2014, approximately three months before plaintiff filed this action. Accordingly, the claim is time-barred. Cruz v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02386, 1st Dept 3-28-17

 

,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS.

The Fourth Department determined the application for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly granted, despite the absence of an adequate excuse and the lack of timely notice of the underlying facts:

Here, even assuming, arguendo, that claimants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their delay, we conclude that the remaining factors support the court’s exercise of discretion in granting their application. Although respondents did not obtain knowledge of the facts underlying the claim until approximately nine months after the expiration of the 90-day period, we conclude under the circumstances of this case that “this was a reasonable time, particularly in light of the fact that respondent[s] do[ ] not contend that there has been any subsequent change in the condition of the [premises] which might hinder the investigation or defense of this action’ ” … . Moreover, claimants made a sufficient showing that the late notice will not substantially prejudice respondents, and respondents failed to “respond with a particularized evidentiary showing that [they] will be substantially prejudiced if the late notice is allowed” … . We therefore conclude that the court “properly exercised its broad discretion in granting [claimants’] application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5)” … . Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 02316, 4th Dept 3-24-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS)

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