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
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE SET IN A STATUS CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Employment Contract Deemed Hiring “At Will”—No Fixed Duration
Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff from an Assault During a Fair on the Premises
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CHILD WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; THEREFORE FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEW JERSEY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVED NEW YORK RESIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS), A TRUCK LEASED BY DEFENDANT NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCK DRIVER FROM PENNSYLVANIA; NO GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION OR THE DRIVER; POSSIBLE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION, BUT NOT THE DRIVER, BASED UPON BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER TO POST A BOND, EVEN THOUGH THE BOND REQUIREMENT WAS LATER ELIMINATED ON APPEAL, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF PRESENTED CREDIBLE EVIDENCE HE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE BOND WHICH IS A DEFENSE TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (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...