FINDLAW: Daily Opinion Summaries for New York Court of Appeals - 11/19/07

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ASSET FORFEITURE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW

Property Clerk of the Police Dep’t of the City of New York v. Harris, No. No. 138The N.Y.P.D. is not required to prove at a post-seizure retention hearing that the co-owner of a seized vehicle is not an “innocent owner” when trying to impound a vehicle during the pendency of a civil forfeiture proceeding. However, due process does require that an innocent co-owner be given an opportunity to demonstrate that his/her present possessory interest in a seized vehicle outweighs the City’s interest in continuing impoundment.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE

Ingraham v. Planning Board of Town of Southeast, No. 2 No. 149, 150The lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), engaged in the requisite scrutiny of a project and regulatory changes that arose after the filing of a SEQRA Findings Statement, and made a reasoned elaboration, using studies and data already available in the file, that a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was not necessary to address those changes.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE

In Re: Sinclair Haberman, No. No. 132Where a zoning board of appeals has voted to grant a variance, the board’s lawyer, acting with actual or apparent authority, may agree to extend the time to build the improvements permitted by the variance. A second board meeting and vote are not required..

CONTRACTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, INSURANCE LAW, SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION

Stiver v. Good & Fair Carting & Moving, Inc., No. No. 137New York State motor vehicle inspection stations cannot be held liable for failing to detect safety-related problems in inspected cars, and a third party cannot claim tort liability against a party with whom it lacks a contractual relationship, without being able to prove an exception to this rule under the court’s test in Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs, (98 NY2d 136 [2002]).

EVIDENCE, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LANDLORD TENANT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE

Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., No. 181 SSM 28Summary judgment in favor of defendant-landowner in a personal injury case is affirmed where the owner had no duty to provide lighting in the property at night where no hazardous or similar conditions were known. Even though defendant did provide lighting in the area where plaintiff was injured, plaintiff still failed to offer any proof that his injury was attributable to any negligence by the property owner. Read more…