Elliott v. City of New York
Decision Date | 27 March 2001 |
Citation | 95 N.Y.2d 730,747 N.E.2d 760,724 N.Y.S.2d 397 |
Parties | KEVIN ELLIOTT, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Ellen B. Fishman, Leonard Koerner and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for appellants.
Michael J. Hutter, Albany, and Philip Newman, P. C., Bronx, for respondent. Clark, Gagliardi & Miller, P. C., White Plains (Lawrence T. D'Aloise, Jr., of counsel), and Lenore Kramer, New York City, for New York State Trial Lawyers Association, amicus curiae.
After playing a few innings of softball at an athletic field located at John F. Kennedy High School, a public school in the Bronx, plaintiff claims that he left the field and headed toward an adjacent set of bleachers. He climbed five rows of seating and sat on the top row. There were no handrails on either of the open ends of the bleachers. Ten minutes later, when it began to rain, plaintiff attempted to descend the bleachers. After taking his first step, he lost his balance and fell approximately four feet to the ground below, sustaining injuries.
Plaintiff's ensuing negligence action against defendants City of New York and New York City Board of Education was based on an alleged violation of section 27-531 (a) (8) (d) of the New York City Building Code, entitled "Seating in assembly spaces." This provision states:
The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on liability, holding that defendants' violation of section 27-531 constituted negligence per se. The issues of causation and damages, however, were submitted to the jury, which found defendants 100% liable for plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was awarded past and future pain and suffering damages, together with a past and future lost earnings award. The Appellate Division modified the judgment on the facts by directing a new trial on the issue of future lost earnings, unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduced award, and otherwise affirmed (267 AD2d 62). Plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in his award. We granted defendants leave to appeal to this Court (95 NY2d 759), and now reverse and order a new trial.
The central dispute in this appeal is whether it was proper for the trial court to determine that, as a matter of law, defendants were negligent based on a violation of section 27-531 (a) (8) (d) of the New York City Building Code, enacted as part of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Defendants contend that a violation of this provision constitutes only some evidence of negligence.
In analyzing whether a violation of this Administrative Code section should be viewed as negligence per se or as some evidence of negligence, we consider the origin of this provision. Consistent with the City's power to enact local laws, this particular provision dealing with protective guards on bleachers was passed by the City Council and approved by the Mayor in 1968 (see, Local Laws, 1968, No. 76 of City of New York; see also, 1 Local Laws of Cities, Counties, Towns and Villages in State of NY Enacted during 1968, at 348). It was then designated as section C26-801.7 of the City's existing Administrative Code. In the early 1980's, the Administrative Code was recodified in order to simplify its confusing numbering system, eliminate obsolete or unconstitutional provisions and reorganize its provisions by subject matter rather than by agency reference (see, Council of City of NY, Report of Governmental Operations Comm and Off of Corporation Counsel, Apr. 3, 1985, Bill Jacket, L 1985, ch 907, at 22-31). Pursuant to a home rule message from the City of New York,1 the State Legislature enacted the recodified Administrative Code, effective September 1, 1986 (see, L 1985, ch 907). The protective guardrail provision at issue then became section 27-531 (a) (8) (d) in the recodified Administrative Code, with no substantive change in its language from its inception in 1968.
This Court has long recognized a distinction between State statutes on the one hand, and local ordinances or administrative rules and regulations on the other, for purposes of establishing negligence (see, Long v Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 NY2d 154, 160; see also, Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 349). As a rule, violation of a State statute that imposes a specific duty constitutes negligence per se, or may even create absolute liability (see, Van Gaasbeck v Webatuck Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 21 NY2d 239, 243). By contrast, violation of a municipal ordinance constitutes only evidence of negligence (see, Martin v Herzog, 228 NY 164, 169).
The rationale for this distinction was enunciated in Major v Waverly & Ogden (7 NY2d 332), which involved a claim dependent upon a violation of rules established by the State Building Code Commission and adopted by the Village of Mamaroneck. Cautioning that the elevation of a violation of an ordinance, or administrative rule or regulation, to a negligence per se standard would "substantially recast" the common law of the State, this Court found that such a change in import and status was more properly left to the Legislature and not to a "subordinate rule-making body" such as the Commission or local government (id., at 335-336). Further, we contrasted the procedures for amending or repealing the Commission's rules with State statutes which, "`once passed, cannot be changed or varied according to the whim or caprice of any officer, board or individual'" (id., at 336 [quoting Schumer v Caplin, 241 NY 346, 351]). Based primarily on these two considerations, the Court held that a violation of the State Building Construction Code, which had been adopted by the Village, constituted only some evidence of negligence.
The same concerns expressed in Major are relevant here. Significantly, the Administrative Code states that the recodification by the Legislature "shall not be construed as validating, ratifying or conforming any provision" of the pre-existing Administrative Code to State law (Administrative Code § 1-102). Thus, the recodified Administrative Code cannot be equated with the enactment of a State statute.2 Further, the 1985 recodification preserved the City's authority to amend or repeal provisions of the Code:
(Administrative Code § 1-103 [emphasis added]).
To surmount this "local law" designation and justify treatment under a negligence per se standard of care, plaintiff relies on our line of cases that have treated sections of the Administrative Code that impose a specific duty as having the "force of statute" in the City of New York (see, e.g., Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 645; Bittrolff v Ho's Dev. Corp., 77 NY2d 896, 899 n; Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 565 n 3). This reliance is, however, misplaced. Those decisions merely restate the basic proposition that a provision of the Administrative Code, similar to a statute, is the controlling authority "within its sphere of operation" (Martin v Herzog, supra, 228 NY, at 169). Whether a section of the Administrative Code has the force of statute with respect to application does not determine its tort consequences. As has been noted, a declaration that a local ordinance or an administrative rule or regulation " ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pasternack v. Lab. Corp. of Am.
...of New York City and State fire and safety codes constitutes only evidence of negligence) (citing Elliott v. City of New York. 95 N.Y.2d 730, 734, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397, 747 N.E.2d 760 (2001)); Bliss v. State, 179 Misc.2d 549, 686 N.Y.S.2d 556, 560 (N.Y.Ct.Cl., 1998) (“[Defendant driver]'s failu......
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liab.
...contain virtually identical allegations, I shall cite to representative cases from each of the sets: Long Island Water, East Hampton, City of New York, and 415. N.Y. Nav. Law § 181. 416. See Long Island Water Corp. Fourth Amended Complaint ("Long Island Water Compl.") ¶¶ 232-287; City of Ne......
-
In re Sept. 11 Property Damage and Business Loss
...that imposes a specific duty constitutes negligence per se, or may even create absolute liability." Elliott v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 730, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397, 747 N.E.2d 760, 762 (2001). However, "violation of a municipal ordinance constitutes only evidence of negligence." Id. In setting......
-
In re Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
...statute, which properly imposes a duty of care, can sustain a claim for negligence per se. Elliott v. City of New York , 95 N.Y.2d 730, 734, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397, 747 N.E.2d 760, 762 (N.Y. 2001) ("As a rule, violation of a State statute that imposes a specific duty constitutes negligence per se......
-
Statute vs. Ordinance: A Review Of Judicial Analysis Of Labor Law Sec. 241(6)
...absolute liability. By contrast, violation of a municipal ordinance constitutes only evidence of negligence. Elliott v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 730 (N.Y. 2001); See also, Fluker v. Ziegele Brewing Co., 201 N.Y. 40 (N.Y. 1911); Amberg v. Kinley, 214 N.Y. 531 (N.Y. 1915); Schumer v. Capli......
-
Relevance & materiality
...a statute that imposes a speciic duty constitutes negligence per se, or may even create absolute liability. Elliot v. City of New York , 95 N.Y.2d 730, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397 (2001). Similarly, Veh. & Traf. Law § 1195, provides that a driver’s blood test results are admissible in any action or pr......
-
Relevance, materiality & presumptions
...a statute that imposes a speciic duty constitutes negligence per se, or may even create absolute liability. Elliot v. City of New York , 95 N.Y.2d 730, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397 (2001). Similarly, Veh. & Traf. Law § 1195, provides that a driver’s blood test results are RELEVANCE & MATERIALITY §4:20 ......
-
Relevance, materiality & presumptions
...a statute that imposes a specific duty constitutes negligence per se, or may even create absolute liability. Elliot v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 730, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397 (2001). Similarly, Veh. & Traf. Law §1195, provides that a driver’s blood test results are admissible in any action or pr......