You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN...
, ,

PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no special relationship between the town and the plaintiffs. The town had allowed fill to be dumped near a stream (Normanskill) by issuing a permit to the property owner, 165 Salisbury Road LLC. A landslide occurred which caused flooding on plaintiffs’ property:

To establish that a municipality created a special relationship by voluntarily assuming a duty, a plaintiff must show: “(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) the party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking”… . Plaintiffs failed to allege any assumption by the Town to act on their behalf, any direct contact between them and any agent of the Town or any justifiable reliance by plaintiffs … .

As for the third way of forming a special relationship, the municipality must not only assume positive direction or control when a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation exists, but must “affirmatively act to place the plaintiff in harm’s way,” through words or conduct that “induc[e] the plaintiff to embark on a dangerous course he or she would otherwise have avoided” … . Although we recently held that Normanskill and 165 Salisbury Road alleged a special relationship with the Town on this basis … , the alleged safety violation existed on property owned or leased by those parties. They were in a markedly different position than plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are removed from the Normanskill property that was directly affected by the fill and permit activities, and the complaint contains no allegations that plaintiffs were even aware of, or had contact with any of the parties involved in, those activities. The allegations provide no indication of how plaintiffs could have been induced by the Town to embark on any course of action, let alone a dangerous one that they would otherwise have avoided … . Szydlowski v Town of Bethlehem, 2018 NY Slip Op 04066, Third Dept 6-7-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/LANDSLIDES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/FLOODING  (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))

/by
You might also like
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT TIMELY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; THEREFORE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WAS NEVER COMPLETE AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY; SUPREME COURT CAN CURE THE NONJURISDICTIONAL DEFECT BY ORDERING DEFENDANT TO BE SERVED AND THE DEFENDANT MAY THEN INTERPOSE AN ANSWER (THIRD DEPT).
Court Properly Accepted Partial Verdict and Sent the Jury Back to Continue Deliberations on the Remaining Count
GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
Injuries from Subduing Mentally Disturbed Person Not Accidental
Defendant Who Pled to All Charges Without a Plea Bargain Could Not Be Required to Waive Appeal
FAILURE TO CLARIFY WHETHER APPEAL WAIVER WAS PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE WAIVER INVALID.
Employer Did Not Submit Employee Benefit Plan as Required by Workers’ Compensation Law 25 (4) (c)—Therefore the Employer Was Entitled to Reimbursement Only for the Workers’ Compensation Benefits Paid to the Employee and Not for the Amounts Paid Under the Employee Benefit Plan
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT HE OWNED THE LAND WHERE TREES WERE HARVESTED; THEREFORE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE TREBLE DAMAGES ASPECT OF RPAPL 861 APPLIES MUST BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED... STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED...