You are here: / / COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF...
, , ,

COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the county could not be held liable for flooding by a brook which overflowed its banks. There was not special relationship between the county and the plaintiff:

“[A] municipal corporation is not liable for failure to restrain waters between banks of a stream or to keep a channel free from obstructions it did not cause. Absent any special duty owed to the private landowners, a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for failing to provide adequate flood protection” … . Here, the County demonstrated that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and that the overflow was caused by natural phenomena, rather than its conduct. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Kimball Brooklands Corp. v County of Westchester, 2016 NY Slip Op 07297, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/FLOODING (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF

You might also like
CALCULATION OF ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY STEMMING FROM A DEGREE EARNED DURING MARRIAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOCATING MARITAL PROPERTY IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT, CPLR SECTION 214-J, REVIVES AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED ACTION COMMENCED IN 2005 AND DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN 2009 (SECOND DEPT
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SHE TYPED IN THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM A DETECTIVE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTFF STUDENT BY TWO TEACHERS; THE FREQUENCY OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (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

STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE... PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN...