You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT...
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED MOTHER TO “STAY AWAY” FROM FATHER AND CHILD; FATHER ASKED THE POLICE FOR HELP IN SERVING THE ORDER AND PICKING UP THE CHLID; MOTHER WOULD NOT LET THE POLICE INTO HER HOME; DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ADVISED THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT ENTER MOTHER’S HOME; THE NEXT DAY MOTHER MURDERED THE CHILD; THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIISMISSED; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, determined the negligence and wrongful death action against the municipal defendants should not have been dismissed, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the notice of claim or leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Plaintiff father was granted sole custody of his child in an order which required mother to “stay away” from father and the child. Plaintiff asked the police for help in serving the order on mother and picking up the child. The police attempted to serve the order, but mother slammed the door and would not let them in. District attorneys were then contacted for advice but determined the police could not enter mother’s home. The next day the police were called to mother’s home where the child was found deceased. Mother was convicted of murdering the child. The Second Department held that there was a special relationship between plaintiff and the municipality and the municipality was not entitled to governmental function immunity: The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:

To establish the existence of a special relationship, a plaintiff is required to prove four elements, also referred to as “the Cuffy factors” or “the Cuffy test,” namely:

“(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” (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 …). * * *

Generally, the “decision to arrest an individual involves the exercise of discretion . . . and thus is cloaked with governmental immunity” … . However, here, in the face of what was, in effect, a temporary order of protection, the defendant police officers became, at a minimum, “obligated to respond and investigate” … . Therefore, the Village defendants have not conclusively established that their actions were purely discretionary … . Boyd v Village of Mamaroneck, 2026 NY Slip Op 02239, Second Dept 4-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes a “special relationship” between a plaintiff and a municipality and when a municipality is protected from liability in negligence by governmental function immunity.

 

You might also like
Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel as Applied to Public Corporations Explained
Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)
THE BANK’S UNILATERAL ATTEMPT TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IS PRECLUDED BY THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PROTECTION ACT (FAPA) WHICH APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO THIS CASE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the 90-Day Period for Filing a Note of Issue
No Need to Be a Shareholder to Bring an Action Pursuant to BCL 720(b)
THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO FILE A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT NECESSARILY FATAL TO A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE WHERE, AS HERE, THE MUNICIPALITY HAD ACTUAL TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM AND IS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF LEAVES ON THE STAIRWAY; THE CONDITION WAS NOT BOTH “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AND “NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IN DESCENDING THE STAIRWAY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Brought a Frivolous Lawsuit Solely to Harass/Costs Properly Imposed on Plaintiff

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

THE INDICTMENT DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OF THE STATUTE DEFENDANT... IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT...