You are here: / Immunity
, , , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE, THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY OR IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county did not have immunity in this Child Victims Act lawsuit alleging negligent foster-care placement of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused by her foster father in the late 70’s:

“The governmental function immunity defense provides immunity for the exercise of discretionary authority during the performance of a governmental function” … . “[T]he governmental function immunity defense cannot attach unless the municipal defendant establishes that the discretion possessed by its employees was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated” … .

… [T]he County failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant acts of the County’s employees relating to the alleged negligent supervision of the plaintiff’s foster care placement were discretionary and thus entitled to immunity … . … [E]ven if the acts at issue could potentially be considered discretionary, the County failed to demonstrate that the alleged discretion was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated … .

… Contrary to the County’s contention, it “was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care” … . M.W. v Nassau County, 2025 NY Slip Op 05550, Second Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: Use this decision as a starting point for research into how governmental function immunity and immunity under the Social Services Law apply to a county foster-care placement. Here the court determined neither type of immunity applied in this Child Victims Act lawsuit.

 

, , , ,

HERE IN THIS MED MAL ACTION, THE COVID-RELATED IMMUNITY CODIFIED IN THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN APRIL 2020, BUT NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN MARCH 2020, BEFORE HIS OFFICE WAS CLOSED PURSUANT TO THE COVID EMERGENCY DECLARATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) does not apply retroactively, and (2), the EDTPA did not provide COVID-related immunity for defendants’ treatment of plaintiff in March, 2020, but did provide immunity for defendants’ treatment of plaintiff in April, 2020:

On March 16, 2020, the plaintiff sought treatment for nausea, constipation, and vomiting from the defendant Joseph Tromba and was examined at Tromba’s medical office at the defendant Long Island Gastroenterology, P.C. On March 23, 2020, the medical office was closed pursuant to the emergency declaration in New York State during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Tromba spoke to the plaintiff on the telephone on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020. On April 6, 2020, the plaintiff presented to a hospital and underwent emergency surgery for a bowel obstruction. * * *

“[T]he EDTPA  … provided … that a health care facility ‘shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services’ [if] the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law, the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives, and the services were arranged or provided in good faith” … .

… [T]he defendants’ submissions in support of their motion for summary judgment failed to establish … that the treatment of the plaintiff on March 16, 2020, was impacted by the defendants’ decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives.  * * *

[Defendants established] the three requirements for immunity were satisfied with respect to their treatment of the plaintiff on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020 … . Tromba testified at his deposition that from March 23, 2020, through May 2020, his office was closed pursuant to the emergency declaration and he was “dealing with” his patients “as well as [he could] without seeing them physically.” Regarding the plaintiff specifically, Tromba testified that he could not see her in his office due to the COVID-19 pandemic and her reticence to leave the house. He also testified that he wanted the plaintiff to go for an X-ray in order to see the quantity of stool in her bowel. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the only place that the plaintiff could obtain an X-ray was an emergency room. The plaintiff testified at her deposition, among other things, that she did not want to go for an X-ray because she had COPD, her husband had emphysema, and it “was in the middle of COVID.” Although she also testified that she would have gone for an X-ray if she thought it would have helped her, she nevertheless testified that this “was when COVID was going on” and she “didn’t even know where [she] could get an X-ray at that point.” This testimony was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s treatment on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020, was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives … . Sapienza v Tromba, 2025 NY Slip Op 04672, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of how the COVID-related immunity codified in the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) can be applied in a medical malpractice action.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED A TEENAGER WHO COMMITTED RACIALLY-MOTIVATED MASS MURDER WAS ADDICTED TO SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT PRESENTING THE VIEW THAT WHITES ARE BEING REPLACED BY NON-WHITES; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED TO BE ADDICTIVE; OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE DEFENDANT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEEMED IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THIRD-PARTY CONTENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lindley, over a two-justice dissent, determined the actions against social media platforms alleging the platforms are defectively designed to be “addictive” such that a teenager’s addiction to racist content led him to commit a racially-motivated mass shooting, should have been dismissed:

These consolidated appeals arise from four separate actions commenced in response to the mass shooting on May 14, 2022 at a grocery store in a predominately Black neighborhood in Buffalo. The shooter, a teenager from the Southern Tier of New York, spent months planning the attack and was motivated by the Great Replacement Theory, which posits that white populations in Western countries are being deliberately replaced by non-white immigrants and people of color. After driving more than 200 miles from his home to Buffalo, the shooter arrived at the store and opened fire on Black individuals in the parking lot and inside the store with a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic rifle, killing 10 people and wounding three others. * * *

The social media defendants moved to dismiss the complaints against them for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), contending, inter alia, that they are immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (section 230) (see 47 USC § 230 [c] [1], [2]) and the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. * * *

… [I]t is undisputed that the social media defendants qualify as providers of interactive computer services. The dispositive question is whether plaintiffs seek to hold the social media defendants liable as publishers or speakers of information provided by other content providers. Based on our reading of the complaints, we conclude that plaintiffs seek to hold the social media defendants liable as publishers of third-party content. We further conclude that the content-recommendation algorithms used by some of the social media defendants do not deprive those defendants of their status as publishers of third-party content. It follows that plaintiffs’ tort causes of action against the social media defendants are barred by section 230. Patterson v Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04385, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of whether social medial platforms can be liable for the actions of persons who become addicted to and are motivated to act by third-party social-media content. Here plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued that social media platforms are defectively designed using algorithms which foster addiction.

 

, , , ,

THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIES TO DEFAMATION ACTIONS WAS NOT APPLICABLE HERE IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISPARAGEMENT PROVISIONS; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY THREATENED TO PROVIDE DAMAGING TESTIMONY IN ANOTHER ACTION INVOLVING PLAINTIFFS, IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARTY, IF DEFENDANT’S DEMANDS WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to immunity in this breach of contract action alleging breach of confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions. The immunity and privilege which applies to statements made in defamation litigation does not apply in breach of contract litigation:

Plaintiffs allege that defendant breached the confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions of their agreement when he threatened to provide damaging testimony in a separate action between plaintiffs and Reebok (a litigation to which defendant was not a party) if his demands in an unrelated arbitration with plaintiffs were not accepted. Plaintiffs further allege that when his demands were rejected, defendant acted on his threats, contacted Reebok, and offered to provide damaging false testimony in that action.

Defendant … argues … that the Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Gottwald v Sebert (40 NY3d 240 [2023]) bars plaintiffs’ action. In Gottwald, the court held that there is no “sham exception” to the litigation privilege in a defamation action, thus conferring absolute litigation privilege no matter the motivation for the suit … . The motion court agreed that Gottwald barred plaintiff’s action and granted defendant summary judgment on that basis.

Gottwald specifically holds that “absolute immunity from liability for defamation exists for . . . statements made . . . in connection with a proceeding before a court when such words and writings are material and pertinent to the questions involved” … . However, here, plaintiffs’ sole cause of action is for breach of contract, not defamation, and thus, Gottwald is not applicable. Moreover, the absolute litigation privilege granted by the Gottwald court was conferred upon parties to the suit. Gottwald does not speak to whether that privilege extends to individuals ancillary or collateral to the litigation, such as a potential witness.  TRB Acquisitions LLC v Yedid, 2025 NY Slip Op 03872, First Dept 6-26-25

Practice Point: The litigation privilege which applies in defamation actions was not applicable here in this breach of contract action where defendant threatened to give damaging testimony in another action involving plaintiffs in which defendant was not a party.

 

, , ,

THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL NURSING FACILITY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-19-RELATED DEATH IS PRECLUDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA); THE REPEAL OF THE ACT IS NOT RETROACTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence-based lawsuit against defendant residential nursing facility stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s death from COVID-19 was precluded by the immunity conferred by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082, repealed by L 2021, ch 96, § 1) (EDTPA). The repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive:

The EDTPA, as effective August 3, 2020, to April 5, 2021, provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of providing health care services,” if: (a) the health care facility “is providing health care services in accordance with applicable law, or where appropriate pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule”; (b) the act or omission occurs in the course of providing health care services and the treatment of the individual is impacted by the health care facility’s “decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the state’s directives”; and (c) the health care facility “is providing health care services in good faith” (Public Health Law former § 3082[1][a]-[c]). …

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of immunity … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the repeal of the EDTPA is not retroactive … . Lara v S&J Operational, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02582, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Although the EDTPA has been repealed. the repeal is not applied retroactively. The COVID-19-related immunity conferred by the act precluded the lawsuit here.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME, WHICH APPARENTLY ALLEGED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NEGLIGENTLY EXPOSED TO COVID-19, WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT” OR THE “FEDERAL PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY ACT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the wrongful death complaint, which apparently alleged, among other things, decedent was negligently exposed to COVID-19 in defendant nursing home, should not have been dismissed. The Fourth Department held that the defendants submissions did not demonstrate the COVID-19-releated immunity provided by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) and the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) (42 USC § 247d-6d) precluded the lawsuit:

… [D]efendants’ submission of the affidavit of Robert G. Hurlbut, the administrator of the facility during the relevant time period, does not conclusively establish that the act or omission constituting defendants’ alleged negligence occurred in the course of arranging for or providing health care services, and it likewise does not conclusively establish that the treatment of decedent was impacted by the health care facility’s or health care professionals’ decisions or activities in response to or resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak … . We therefore conclude that defendants’ submissions did not conclusively establish the three requirements for immunity under the EDTPA … . …

With respect to the PREP Act * * * plaintiff alleged … that defendants failed to properly sterilize equipment to prevent the spread of infection, failed to follow their own infection control practices, and failed to maintain and utilize the proper personal protective equipment as required by federal law. Plaintiff further alleged that decedent suffered a range of injuries from defendants’ negligence, including pressure ulcers, head injuries, and lacerations, in addition to the contraction of COVID-19. Defendants’ submissions failed to establish that decedent’s injuries arose from the use of an approved countermeasure under the PREP Act … . Sweatman v The Hurlbut, 2025 NY Slip Op 02522, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: In the context of a motion to dismiss the complaint, which apparently alleged, among other things, that plaintiff’s decedent was negligently exposed to COVID-19 in defendant nursing home, the immunity provided by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) and the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) (42 USC § 247d-6d) was not demonstrated to preclude the lawsuit.

 

, , , ,

A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined a municipality owes a child placed in foster care a special duty, such that the municipality, although performing a governmental function, can be liable for negligent placement of a child:

Today we hold that municipalities owe a duty of care to the children the municipalities place in foster homes because the municipalities have assumed custody of those children. As a result, we reverse the decision of the Appellate Division.

Plaintiff, formerly a child in foster care, commenced this action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g) against defendant Cayuga County and “Does 1-10,” who she alleged were “persons or entities with responsibilities for [p]laintiff’s safety, supervision and/or placement in foster care.” According to the complaint, the County placed plaintiff in foster care in 1974, when she was three months old. While in the foster home selected by the County, plaintiff allegedly suffered horrific abuse. Plaintiff alleged that her foster parent sexually abused her over the course of approximately seven years, beginning when she was 18 months old and continuing until she was eight years old. The foster parent allegedly coerced plaintiff’s compliance with the sexual abuse by inflicting severe physical abuse, resulting in plaintiff sustaining broken bones and a head wound. * * *

By assuming legal custody over the foster child, the applicable government official steps in as the sole legal authority responsible for determining who has daily control over the child’s life … . We thus hold that a municipality owes a duty to a foster child over whom it has assumed legal custody to guard the child from “foreseeable risks of harm” arising from the child’s placement with the municipality’s choice of foster parent … . Weisbrod-Moore v Cayuga County, 2025 NY Slip Op 00903, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: A municipality generally is not liable for injury resulting from the exercise of a governmental function absent a special duty owed to the injured party. Resolving a split of authority, here the Court of Appeals held a municipality owes a special duty to a child it places in foster care.

 

, ,

A POLICE OFFICER DIRECTING TRAFFIC IS PERFORMING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION; THE OFFICER AND THE CITY ARE THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM LIABLITY FOR A RELATED ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city defendants and defendant police officer (McMillan) were entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. It was alleged that McMillan negligently directed the vehicle which struck plaintiff to enter the intersection. Because directing traffic is a governmental function requiring the exercise of discretion, the governmental function immunity doctrine controls:

… [T]he City defendants and McMillan established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence cause of action insofar as asserted against them irrespective of the conflicting evidence as to whether McMillan directed the driver of the vehicle into the intersection. Under the facts as alleged, if McMillan directed the driver of the vehicle into the intersection, McMillan’s action was discretionary and he and the City defendants are thus immune from liability under governmental function immunity … . If, on the other hand, McMillan was standing on the side of the road not directing any traffic, there was no negligent act and no basis for liability for him or the City defendants … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Hershkovitz v Brown, 2025 NY Slip Op 00436, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: A police officer directing traffic is performing a governmental function requiring the exercise of discretion. The officer and the city are therefore immune from liability for a related traffic accident.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE WAS BITTEN BY A POLICE DOG; THE TRAINING WAS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY MUST HAVE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY TO BE LIABLE, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality (City of Middletown) did not owe a special duty to plaintiff police officer, who was bitten by a police dog during training: The dog handler, Officer McDonald (a City of Middletown police officer), and plaintiff were participants in training sessions conducted by the NYS Homeland Security and Emergency Services when the unleased dog bit plaintiff:

As part of the training, the police dogs were off-leash. The plaintiff, who was participating in a different training event in a different building, entered the building where the explosives detection training exercise was being held and was still in progress when he was bitten by Officer McDonald’s police dog.

When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality was exercising a governmental function, a municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff. There was no evidence that Officer McDonald [the dog handler] took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendants established that Officer McDonald was an attendee at a training program conducted by the New York State Homeland Security and Emergency Services at a New York State facility, that he merely participated in the training exercise, and that he took direction from the NYPD canine instructor. Mahar v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 00315, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the police dog handler did not have control of the unleashed dog when it bit plaintiff. The dog and the handler were participating in an explosive-detection training session conducted by a third party. Because the dog handler had not taken control of a known and dangerous safety condition (the dog) at the time plaintiff was injured, the dog handler did not owe plaintiff a special duty, a prerequisite to municipal liability.

 

, , ,

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.”

 

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