Date: February 25, 2020
Location: Garden City, New York
On December 18, 2019, the Supreme Court, Nassau County granted the Town of Hempstead summary judgment dismissing a property owner’s claim that the Town wrongfully demolished his building after his building sustained severe structural damages as a result of a fire.
On April 29, 2015, a fire started at a one-story building located in Island Park. Despite the property owner’s efforts he was unable to put out the fire and several fire departments were called to extinguish it. Subsequently, the Town’s Code Enforcement Officers, engineer and others inspected the building and determined that it was structurally unsound and was in imminent danger of collapsing.
Due to, among other things, the proximity of the building with the adjacent property and roadways, the Town determined that the building posed an imminent threat to the public and that the building needed to be immediately demolished. As a result, the Town demolished the building pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Hempstead Town Code, which provides that when a building poses an imminent danger to the life or safety of the public, the Town’s Building Inspector is authorized to take such action as is necessary to protect the safety of the public.
The property owner then commenced a lawsuit alleging that the Town’s decision to immediately demolish his building was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that the Town “made out a prima facie case of the existence of exigent circumstances on the day of the fire, and that plaintiff’s building had become a ‘dangerous building'”. The Court, in granting the Town’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, found that “plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the Town’s determination to demolish his building on the day of the fire constitutes arbitrary action or an abuse of discretion” on behalf of the Town.
Jaspan Schlesinger LLP partners, Lisa A. Cairo and Christopher E. Vatter, represented the Town in this action. Click here to read the Court’s decision.
