Town of Cheektowaga v. City of Buffalo
| Decision Date | 19 January 1979 |
| Citation | 67 A.D.2d 812,413 N.Y.S.2d 52 |
| Parties | Application of TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA, Respondent, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant, Village of Sloan, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph P. McNamara, Corp. Counsel, Buffalo by Peter J. Gerard, Buffalo, for appellant.
John V. Rogowski, Cheektowaga by James J. Kirisits, Buffalo, for respondent Town.
Albert J. Rydzynski, Buffalo, for respondent Village.
Before MOULE, J. P., and SIMONS, DILLON, HANCOCK and SCHNEPP, JJ.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the City of Buffalo may be held liable for damages suffered by the Town of Cheektowaga as a result of the acts of the city's officers and employees in enforcing a city ordinance which excluded from all city streets except those designated as truck routes "(a)ny truck having a total combined gross weight * * * in excess of five tons" (Buffalo City Ordinances, ch. LX, § 40, subd. (2)). The ordinance further provided, inter alia, that "(s)uch exclusion shall not be construed * * * to prevent the necessary operation of trucks while in use by * * * sanitation or street maintenance services * * *."
Between January 2, 1975 and August 8, 1975 refuse collected in the Town of Cheektowaga regularly was transported in trucks via East Lovejoy Street in the City of Buffalo to a refuse transfer station in the Village of Sloan. East Lovejoy Street was not designated as a truck route and was posted by the city to prohibit its use by trucks of a gross weight, including load, in excess of five tons. Town of Cheektowaga sanitation trucks were clearly in violation of the ordinance unless the same was not to be applied to them pursuant to the language exempting such vehicles from its coverage.
The city Commissioner of Transportation determined that the language exempting certain types of trucks from the impact of the ordinance "was intended to exempt vehicles which provide a service to dwelling units on a given street, such as fire service, collection of garbage for the houses on the street and that type of service." On August 9, 1975, pursuant to the Commissioner's authorization, police issued traffic summonses to the drivers of Cheektowaga sanitation trucks traveling on East Lovejoy Street, and the town was thereafter required to turn to a more expensive method of disposing of its refuse. The claim for damages is limited to a specific time period, however, because of a later amendment to the City ordinance.
The city appeals only from that part of the judgment which awarded damages in the sum of $4,243.35. It asserts that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poysa v. State
...249 N.Y.S.2d 330, Affd. 15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866, Supra (Building Inspector); Matter of Town of Cheektowaga v. City of Buffalo, 67 A.D.2d 812, 413 N.Y.S.2d 52 (City Commissioner of Transportation); See also, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
Santangelo v. State
...373, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd. 15 N.Y.S.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866 (Building Inspector); Matter of Town of Cheektowaga v. City of Buffalo, 67 A.D.2d 812, 413 N.Y.S.2d 52 (City Commissioner of Transportation); see also, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
Privitera v. Town of Phelps
...remedies. It is doubtful that they have a cause of action for such conduct in any event (see Matter of Town of Cheektowaga v. City of Buffalo, 67 A.D.2d 812, 413 N.Y.S.2d 52; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866), but unti......
-
Weese v. Village of Medina, N. Y.
...not discretionary or quasi-judicial in nature requiring that defendant be found immune from liability (Matter of Town of Cheektowaga v. City of Buffalo, 67 A.D.2d 812, 413 N.Y.S.2d 52; Movable Homes v. City of North Tonawanda, 56 A.D.2d 718, 392 N.Y.S.2d Order unanimously reversed with cost......