You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN A GUARDED DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT AND IN A LOCKED BATHROOM IN THE JAIL; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL, NOT A PROPRIETARY, FUNCTION (PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE PARKING LOT AND JAIL), PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY OWED HIM A SPECIAL DUTY, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO DO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence action against the county in this Child Victims Act case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant Weis, a corrections officer employed by defendant Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, sexually abused him in a guarded parking lot at the Sheriff’s Department and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department held that the alleged negligence related to a governmental function, not a proprietary function of the Sheriff’s Department, requiring plaintiff to demonstrate he was owed a “special duty:”

… [T]he specific acts or omissions that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries were the defendant’s decisions regarding the level of security and surveillance to provide in a fenced-in jail parking lot, with admission controlled by a posted guard, or within the facility itself. Those decisions go beyond the scope of the defendant’s duty as a landlord and constitute actions undertaken in the defendant’s police protection capacity … . Accordingly, the specific acts or omissions at issue here involved a governmental function.

… [B]ecause the defendant was engaged in a governmental function, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the municipality owed him a “special duty” … . A special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted” or “the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally” … . Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Neary v Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 00105, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: It is not easy to determine whether a governmental entity is engaged in a governmental function or a proprietary function at the time of an alleged negligent act or omission. Here plaintiff alleged abuse by a Sheriff’s Department employee in the guarded department parking lot and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department deemed the security of the parking lot and the jail a governmental function (acting as a landlord) and held the county could not be liable unless it owed plaintiff a ‘special duty.” Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a “special duty.”

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON PRIOR ARRESTS WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR A WEAPON WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTION FOR FINDINGS TO ENABLE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS).
DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Affidavits and Text Messages Do Not Constitute “Documentary Evidence” In the Context of a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)
RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT).
PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE; DEPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46

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 PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE... THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION...