You are here: / / THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE 911 DISPATCHER AND THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS...
, ,

THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE 911 DISPATCHER AND THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS CONSTITUTED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN THE PERFORMANCE A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION; THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY DEFENSE INSULATED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipal defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligence action stemming from decisions made by emergency personnel in response to a 911 call. The emergency services, including the dispatch of a “Basic Life Support” (BLS), as opposed to an “Advanced Life Support” (ALS) ambulance, and the attempts to intubate the unresponsive plaintiff rather than to immediately transport her to the hospital, were deemed the exercise of discretion while performing a government function. Discretionary actions taken in performance of a government function are insulated from liability by the government-function-immunity defense:

“[W]hen both the special duty requirement and the governmental function immunity defense are asserted in a negligence case, the rule that emerges is that government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general” … . In other words, in a negligence action where the municipality has raised the governmental function immunity defense, a plaintiff may only hold the municipality liable for actions taken in its governmental capacity where (1) a special duty exists and (2) the municipality’s actions were ministerial in nature and not the result of discretionary decision-making … . * * *

The defendants demonstrated that the 911 dispatcher’s decision, among other things, to send a BLS ambulance rather than an ALS ambulance “was discretionary and, therefore, protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity” … . Under the circumstances presented, the defendants also established that the EMTs exercised their discretion in declining to immediately transport [plaintiff] to the nearby hospital and to instead wait for the paramedics in the ALS ambulance to arrive. Similarly, the defendants demonstrated that the actions of the paramedics resulted from discretionary decision-making, including with regard to the type of treatment to render … . Walker-Rodriguez v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05237, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise but complete one-paragraph compilation of all the issues associated with municipal liability for negligence–proprietary versus government function, special duty, discretionary versus ministerial acts, etc.

 

You might also like
No “Special Employee” Relationship
Failure to Cooperate with Probation Department Is Valid Reason for Enhanced Sentence
THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Delivered, I.E., When the Vehicle Was Leased===Three-Year Statute of Limitations for the General Business Law 349 Cause of Action Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Subsequently Purchased (After the Lease-Period)
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
FAMILY COURT, UPON REMITTAL AFTER A PRIOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL, DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD FOR REVIEW OF ITS ORDER RE: FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
IF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER MOVES CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE BANK SUFFICIENTLY PROVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL... THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED WAS...