You are here: / / “Special Relationship” Required Before Municipality Can Be Liable for Fai...
, ,

“Special Relationship” Required Before Municipality Can Be Liable for Failure to Enforce Statute or Regulation

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed a complaint against the village alleging plaintiffs were exposed to “noise, smoke and odor” emanating from a Verizon facility and the exposure constituted a health hazard.  The complaint against the village alleged the negligent failure to enforce rules, regulations and building codes.  The Second Department explained that absent a “special relationship” creating a duty of care for the benefit of particular people, liability may not be imposed on a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation.  The criteria for a special relationship are:

A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when the municipality voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known blatant and dangerous safety violation… .

“To form a special relationship through breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action”… .

With respect to the creation of a special relationship by the municipality’s voluntary assumption of a duty and the plaintiffs’ justifiable reliance on the municipality’s undertaking, four criteria must be shown: “ (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking’”… .

“[R]eliance must be examined in the specific context of the nature of the affirmative duty undertaken[,]” and “[i]t is the plaintiffs’ burden to show that the defendants’ conduct actually lulled them into a false sense of security, induced them to . . . forego other avenues of protection, and thereby placed themselves in a worse position than they would have been had the defendants never assumed the duty”… . Ferriera v Cellco Partnership…, 2013 NY Slip Op 07706, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF STATED A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEYS’ ALLEGEDLY UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN PROSECUTING AN ACTION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR, RESULTING IN THE INABILITY TO COLLECT THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND DEPT.
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS PROPERLY SERVED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPPLEMENTAL BILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION. 
Prosecutor’s Remarks in Summation, in Combination with the Erroneous Admission of Portions of a Recorded Phone Call Made by the Defendant from Jail, Warranted Reversal
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Courts Will Not Intercede to Resolve a Dispute Between Two Wrongdoers—“In Pari Delicto”
Mother’s Failure to Seek Immediate Medical Assistance for Child Fatally Injured by Her Boyfriend Supported a Severe Abuse Finding and a Derivative Severe Abuse Finding—Amendment to Family Court Act 1051 (e), Removing the “Diligent Efforts” Requirement, Imposed Retroactively to Support Severe Abuse Finding
LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO ILLNESS, FAILING GRADES ALLOWED TO STAND (SECOND DEPT).

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

Family Members Failed to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Care-Provider... Preliminary Injunction Should Not Have Been Granted—Petitioners Did Not...