You are here: / / Suit Against Municipality Based Upon Exercise of a Governmental Function...
,

Suit Against Municipality Based Upon Exercise of a Governmental Function Properly Dismissed—No Special Duty to Plaintiff

The Second Department, in affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit against a municipality based upon the exercise of a governmental function, explained the relevant law:

A municipal entity “is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public'” … . The plaintiff must first establish the existence of a special duty owed to it by the entity before it becomes necessary to address whether the entity can rely upon the defense of governmental immunity … . A special duty arises when there is a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff as a result of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity … . When a municipality assumes an affirmative duty to act on behalf of a specific party, and that party justifiably relies to its detriment on the direct assurances of the municipality’s agents, a special duty arises … .

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Richline Group Inc v City of Mount Vernon, 2014 NY Slip Op 04184, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

You might also like
A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE CURB WHEN PICKING UP OR DISCHARGING PASSENGERS; THE DRIVER STOPPED TWO FEET FROM THE CURB AND PLAINTIFF FELL TRYING TO GET INTO THE VEHICLE; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE UBER DRIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Drug Treatment and Drug Testing Facilities Do Not Have a Duty to Provide the Test Results With a Disclaimer Indicating the Tests Were Done According to “Clinical,” Not “Forensic,” Standards—Here the “Clinical” Results Were Disseminated and Used In Court Proceedings
APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure Re: Notes Sent Out By Jury Is a “Mode of Proceedings” Error Requiring Reversal
BY THE TERMS OF THE MANAGING AGENT’S CONTRACT WITH THE COOPERATIVE, THE MANAGING AGENT DID NOT FULLY ASSUME THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE COOPERATIVE PREMISES SUCH THAT THE AGENT WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON THE PREMISES; THE MANAGING AGENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY AN LLC; ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES TO THE PARTITION ACTION ARE EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE LLC, MEMBERS HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF AN LLC; THEREFORE THE PARTITION ACTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“No Action” Clause In a Trust Indenture Interpreted Narrowly Under... Robbery First and Second Degree Convictions (Forcible Stealing) Supported Where...