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
The Prosecutor’s Acting As an Unsworn Witness (Suggesting He Had Been Present at a Trial In Which the Defense Expert Had Lied) and The Prosecutor’s Repeated Questioning of the Expert and Another Defense Witness About Their Alleged Lying Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial on the Murder Count
THE FEDERAL CONSPIRACY-TO-DEAL-IN-FIREARMS STATUTE HAS DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAN ITS NEW YORK EQUIVALENT AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION WAS AFFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF THE JUVENILE KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S CHILD, A PRE-KINDERGARTEN STUDENT, FELL AND HIT HER HEAD, THE ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT INFORM THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
NO-FAULT CARRIER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LETTERS TO DEFENDANT SCHEDULING AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH WERE TIMELY AND PROPERLY MAILED, CARRIER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
Partial Performance of an Oral Modification Will Allow Enforcement of the Oral Modification Even Where the Written Agreement Prohibits Oral Modification

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...