You are here: / / “Special Relationship” Required Before Municipality Can Be Liable for Fai...
, ,

“Special Relationship” Required Before Municipality Can Be Liable for Failure to Enforce Statute or Regulation

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed a complaint against the village alleging plaintiffs were exposed to “noise, smoke and odor” emanating from a Verizon facility and the exposure constituted a health hazard.  The complaint against the village alleged the negligent failure to enforce rules, regulations and building codes.  The Second Department explained that absent a “special relationship” creating a duty of care for the benefit of particular people, liability may not be imposed on a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation.  The criteria for a special relationship are:

A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when the municipality voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known blatant and dangerous safety violation… .

“To form a special relationship through breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action”… .

With respect to the creation of a special relationship by the municipality’s voluntary assumption of a duty and the plaintiffs’ justifiable reliance on the municipality’s undertaking, four criteria must be shown: “ (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’”… .

“[R]eliance must be examined in the specific context of the nature of the affirmative duty undertaken[,]” and “[i]t is the plaintiffs’ burden to show that the defendants’ conduct actually lulled them into a false sense of security, induced them to . . . forego other avenues of protection, and thereby placed themselves in a worse position than they would have been had the defendants never assumed the duty”… . Ferriera v Cellco Partnership…, 2013 NY Slip Op 07706, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE, RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION; PETITION DISMISSED.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308 AND 311 ARE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, NOT “TECHNICAL” DEFECTS WHICH CAN BE OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN AT THE TIME THE MOTION TO EXTEND WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).
Partial Closure of Courtroom During Testimony of Undercover Police Okay
Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury Question—Only If the Jury Determines the Evidence Was Relevant Can the Jury Consider the Adverse Inference Charge for Spoliation of Evidence
THE PARTIAL PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD THE DOWN PAYMENT ON THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS RENDERED THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION UNENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Written Waiver of Conflict by Defendants Precluded Disqualification of Plaintiff’s Counsel
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PREMATURE (MADE BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED) AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE COULD BE HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED (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

Family Members Failed to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Care-Provider... Preliminary Injunction Should Not Have Been Granted—Petitioners Did Not...