You are here: / / Governmental Immunity Re: Plaintiff Does Not Insulate Governmental Defendants...
, ,

Governmental Immunity Re: Plaintiff Does Not Insulate Governmental Defendants from Contribution Claim by Another Defendant to Whom the Governmental Defendants Owed a Duty of Care

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of an action against the governmental defendants (the “appellants”) based upon governmental immunity.  The appellants had referred one Smith to another defendant, the North Amityville Community Economic Council (NACEC), as a potential employee.  The appellants had agreed not to refer anyone with a criminal record to NACEC.  Smith was a sex offender who was hired by NACEC.  Smith sexually assaulted the plaintiff at the NACEC facility.  After explaining the relevant immunity criteria in depth, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the action against the appellants.  The Second Department also determined Supreme Court properly refused to dismiss the cross-claims against the appellants by NACEC, noting that governmental immunity did not protect the appellants from a contribution claim by a defendant to whom the appellants owed a duty of care:

Here, the appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of governmental immunity by demonstrating that they did not voluntarily assume a special duty to the plaintiff … . Furthermore, the plaintiff does not allege that the appellants violated any statutory duty, and the appellants established that they did not assume positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation … .

“[A] defendant may seek contribution from a third party even if the injured plaintiff has no direct right of recovery against that party, either because of a procedural bar or because of a substantive legal rule. A contribution claim can be made even when the contributor has no duty to the injured plaintiff. In such situations, a claim of contribution may be asserted if there has been a breach of a duty that runs from the contributor to the defendant who has been held liable” … . Here, the appellants agreed not to refer anyone to NACEC who had a criminal background. Nonetheless, Smith, who was a level three sex offender, was referred to NACEC by the appellants. Under these circumstances, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants breached a duty of care to NACEC … . Tara NP v Western Suffolk Bd of Coop Educ Servs, 2014 NY Slip Op 06189, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​
AFTER CONVERTING THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION TO A COMPLAINT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE CITY WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW IT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE NINE MONTH DELAY BEFORE THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A SLIP AND FALL INCIDENT REPORT WAS CREATED BY THE POLICE ON THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
The Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy In an Envelope Containing His Personal Belongings—The Belongings Were Placed in the Envelope Upon Defendant’s Admission to a Hospital—Even though the Police Were Under the Impression the Defendant Was a Crime Victim, Not a Perpetrator, at the Time the Contents of the Envelope Were Examined, the Search Was Not Justified—Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy Re: the Contents of the Envelope—The People Were Unable to Meet their “Burden of Going Forward” at the Suppression Hearing Because They Could Not Demonstrate the Legality of the Police Conduct
TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
STANDING EVIDENCE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, EVIDENCE THE LOAN WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RPAPL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME LOANS APPLIED.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (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

Plaintiff Was Catapulted Into the Air from a Flatbed Truck When a Heavy Bundle... Failure to Comply with Statutory Notice Requirements Required Dismissal of Action...