You are here: / Immunity
, , ,

TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD.

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to be fairly summarized here, determined a town board of assessment review (BAR) is a quasi-judicial body and is therefore entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Third Department further determined that causes of actions for civil rights violations (42 USC 1983) against two town assessors individually (stemming from allegedly discriminatory property tax assessments) can go forward:

Consistent with the provisions of RPTL 523, the Town was required to have a board of assessment review (see RPTL 523 [1] [a]), and its individual members, in turn, were required to attend mandated training (see RPTL 523 [1] [d]; [2]). Here, in accordance with its appointed duties, the BAR had a statutory obligation to “fix the place or places for the hearing of complaints in relation to assessments” (RPTL 525 [1]) and, on the date required by law, to “meet to hear complaints in relation to assessments” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]). Upon convening for the required hearing, the BAR could “administer oaths, take testimony and hear proofs in regard to any complaint and the assessment to which it relates” and, further, could “require the person whose real property is assessed, or his or her agent or representative, or any other person, to appear before [it] and be examined concerning such complaint, and to produce any papers relating to such assessment” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]). “Minutes of the examination of every person [so] examined” were required to “be taken and filed in the office of the . . . town clerk” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]), and the BAR thereafter was required to “determine the final assessed valuation or taxable assessed valuation . . . of the real property of each complainant” (RPTL 525 [3] [a]), “prepare and verify a statement showing the changes determined to be made by them in the assessments” and notify each complainant of its determination and the time within which to seek judicial review thereof (RPTL 525 [4]). In light of these statutory mandates, it is apparent that the BAR’s determinations constitute decisions of a quasi-judicial nature and, hence, the BAR (and its individual members) are entitled to absolute immunity … . * * *

… [S]uffice it to say that [defendants town assessors’] proof … fell short of establishing that the assessors valued plaintiff’s property in a nondiscriminatory fashion and, therefore, defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment [on the violation of civil rights causes of action]. Corvetti v Town of Lake Pleasant, 2017 NY Slip Op 00227, 3rd Dept 1-12-17

 

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/MUNICIPAL LAW (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/IMMUNITY (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/CIVIL RIGHTS (42 USC 1983) (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/42 USC 1983 (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)

, ,

COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Third Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, determined several statements in this defamation action were not merely opinions and were therefore actionable against the defendant who made the statements in a letter to town officials. The republication of the defamatory statements as well as other statements by town officials were entitled to either absolute privilege or qualified immunity.  The decision includes substantive discussions of the elements of defamation, opinion versus fact, mixed opinion and fact, absolute immunity and qualified immunity, which cannot be fairly summarized here. With regard to (actionable) fact versus (nonactionable) opinion, the court explained:

It is well settled that, “[s]ince falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts are capable of being proven false, only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action” … . “Distinguishing actionable fact from a protected expression of opinion is a question of law in which several factors are weighed, including whether the allegedly defamatory words have a precise meaning that is readily understood, whether the statement can be proven as true or false, and whether the context and surrounding circumstances would indicate that the comment is an opinion” … .

While a pure expression of opinion is not actionable, a “mixed opinion” — i.e., one that “‘implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it'” — can be the subject of a defamation claim … . “Rather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact,” we must “look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made and determine on that basis whether the reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the plaintiff” … . Hull v Town of Prattsville, 2016 NY Slip Op 08917, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

DEFAMATION (COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DEFAMATION, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

, ,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this vehicle-accident case alleging the negligent failure to install a guardrail. The county did not demonstrate it was entitled to qualified immunity based upon a relevant highway-safety study of the area, and did not demonstrate the absence of a guardrail was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries:

A municipal defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … . Here, the evidence presented by the County failed to establish that it undertook a study which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that is at issue in this case … . …

… [T]he County failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have a duty to place guardrails near the concrete headwall involved in the plaintiff’s accident. …

… [T]he County’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether its alleged negligence in failing to place guardrails near the concrete headwall … was a substantial factor in aggravating the plaintiff’s injuries … . Bednoski v County of Suffolk, 2016 NY Slip Op 08832, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/GUARDRAILS (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

,

CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion, determined the city was properly held liable for an accident on a road known for speeding. Plaintiff, a twelve-year-old boy, was struck while trying to cross the road on his bicycle. The driver was going 54 miles per hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone. The city had received numerous speeding complaints over the years and had undertaken four studies to determine whether traffic control devices should be installed on the road. Plaintiffs presented evidence that traffic control devices would not solve the speeding problem and so-called “traffic calming” measures were needed (speed humps, raised cross-walks, etc.). The Court of Appeals, affirming Supreme Court, found that maintaining safe roadways was a proprietary function, not a governmental function. Therefore there was no need for a special relationship with plaintiff as a prerequisite for liability. The court further found that the city was not entitled to qualified immunity stemming from the traffic studies, because the studies did not address “traffic calming” measures:

We do not suggest that a municipality has a proprietary duty to keep its roadways free from all unlawful or reckless driving behavior. Under the particular circumstances of this case, however, plaintiffs demonstrated that the City was made aware through repeated complaints of ongoing speeding along Gerritsen Avenue, that the City could have implemented roadway design changes in the form of traffic calming measures to deter speeding, and that the City failed to conduct a study of whether traffic calming measures were appropriate and therefore failed to implement any such measures. … [W]hether the City’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident or [the driver’s] speeding was the sole proximate cause, and whether the City was entitled to qualified immunity based on its response to those repeated complaints, were both issues to be resolved by the jury.  Turturro v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08579, CtApp 12-22-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED)/IMMUNITY (CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED)

,

STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY.

The Third Department affirmed the Court of Claim’s determination that the absence of a guide rail was not the proximate cause of claimant’s injuries, and the state was entitled to qualified immunity because it had reasonably concluded after a study that a guide rail was not necessary. Claimant was injured when the ambulance in which he was riding struck a stone wall near the roadway:

Defendant’s duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition includes the installation of guide rails when necessary … . With respect to highway safety and design, defendant is “accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . “Under this doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” … . Schroeder v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08263, 3rd Dept 12-8-16

COURT OF CLAIMS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/IMMUNITY (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/GUIDE RAILS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/GUARD RAILS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)

, ,

FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS.

The Third Department determined the action against the city alleging negligence resulting in the destruction of plaintiffs’ property by fire should not have been dismissed. Fire department personnel told the plaintiffs the fire had been extinguished and that it was safe to reenter. However the fire rekindled. The Third Department held that there was a “special relationship” between the city and the plaintiffs stemming from the assurances the fire was out:

To establish a special relationship, plaintiffs were required to show: “(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” … .

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and providing them the benefit of every favorable inference …, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed. With regard to the first element, there is no dispute that defendants’ agents dispatched the Department to plaintiffs’ residence in response to their 911 call for assistance and that the responding crew thereafter assumed control over the ongoing fire. Even if the Department’s actions in that regard simply constituted the performance of a duty owed to the public generally … , we are of the view that, by making affirmative representations to plaintiffs that the fire had been fully extinguished and that it was safe to reenter the home, the Department assumed an affirmative duty to plaintiffs … . As for the second and third elements, knowledge on the part of the Department that inaction could result in harm can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances … , and the Department’s employees undisputedly had direct contact with plaintiffs. With respect to the final element, plaintiffs allege that they relied upon the Department’s assurances that the fire was completely extinguished in choosing to leave their home unattended for the evening. Trimble v City of Albany, 2016 NY Slip Op 07912, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/FIRE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)

, ,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS.

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this intersection car accident case. Plaintiff alleged the county was negligent in failing to install a traffic control device with a left turn signal, because there was a designated lane for a left turn. The accident occurred when plaintiff attempted to make a left turn. Because the county did not demonstrate the issue had been adequately studied, it did not demonstrate government immunity applied. Therefore the county’s motion was properly denied without need to address the opposing papers:

A governmental entity has a duty to the public to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . “While this duty is nondelegable, it is measured by the courts with consideration given to the proper limits on intrusion into the [government’s] planning and decision-making functions. Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental entity may not be held liable for a highway safety planning decision unless its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate, or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan … . Immunity will apply only “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … .

Here, the County failed to establish that the design of the subject traffic signal, including the determination that no left-turn signal was warranted, was based on a study which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that the plaintiff would put to a jury … . Warren v Evans, 2016 NY Slip Op 07641, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)/IMMUNITY (HIGHWAYS, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)/HIGHWAYS (COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)

, , ,

COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the county could not be held liable for flooding by a brook which overflowed its banks. There was not special relationship between the county and the plaintiff:

“[A] municipal corporation is not liable for failure to restrain waters between banks of a stream or to keep a channel free from obstructions it did not cause. Absent any special duty owed to the private landowners, a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for failing to provide adequate flood protection” … . Here, the County demonstrated that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and that the overflow was caused by natural phenomena, rather than its conduct. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Kimball Brooklands Corp. v County of Westchester, 2016 NY Slip Op 07297, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/FLOODING (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, concerning a lawsuit alleging the Erie County Sheriff was negligent in failing to protect plaintiff from sexual assault while in jail, determined: (1) plaintiff did not need to file a notice of claim because the county can not, under the NYS Constitution, indemnify and defend the sheriff in connection with the action; (2) the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence (failure to keep an inmate safe); and (3) governmental immunity is an affirmative defense on which the sheriff bears the burden of proof which cannot be addressed at the pleading stage. The fact that the county provided law enforcement liability insurance for the sheriff did not trigger the notice of claim requirement under the Municipal Law:

… [T]hat the County agreed to provide “Liability Insurance” for the Sheriff in exchange for consideration because “policies of law enforcement liability insurance paid for by the County” had become prohibitively expensive. In resolving to act as an insurer, the County recognized — as was commonly understood at the time — that it could not statutorily obligate itself to defend and indemnify the Sheriff, as it had agreed to do for the Sheriff’s employees, under the New York State Constitution … . Absent the existence of any statutory obligation on the County to indemnify the Sheriff — as opposed to an agreement to act as his insurer — the Appellate Division correctly ruled that service of a notice of claim was not required under General Municipal Law § 50-e. …

While the State is by no means an insurer of inmate safety or required to provide unremitting surveillance in all circumstances … , we explained in Sanchez [99 NY2d 247] that, “[h]aving assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the State owes a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates” … . Inasmuch as “the Sheriff is [similarly] prescribed, by law, to safely keep inmates of the County Jail” … , the rule set forth in Sanchez applies equally here. Villar v Howard, 2016 NY Slip Op 06944, CtApp 10-25-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)/NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)/SHERIFF (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)

,

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY PROTECTED STATE FROM SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL.

The Second Department, affirming the Court of Claims, determined the state was protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Plaintiffs were injured when a van in which they were riding struck a highway guardrail and concrete pillar. The complaint alleged the guardrail was not long enough:

To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, the governmental body must demonstrate “that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberate decision-making process” … . “A municipality is entitled to qualified immunity where a governmental planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury'” … . Accordingly, where the decision made by the municipality or governmental body was not the product of a governmental plan or study, the doctrine of qualified immunity is inapplicable … .

Here, the Court of Claims correctly applied the doctrine of qualified immunity based on the evidence the defendants submitted at trial that the guardrail was designed pursuant to the design standards set forth by the New York State Department of Transportation, which were the result of a deliberate decision-making process of the type afforded immunity from judicial interference … . Ramirez v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06815, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

 

COURT OF CLAIMS (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY PROTECTED STATE FROM SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL)/IMMUNITY (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY PROTECTED STATE FROM SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY PROTECTED STATE FROM SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL)/QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY PROTECTED STATE FROM SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL)/HIGHWAYS (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY PROTECTED STATE FROM SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL)/GUARDRAILS (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY PROTECTED STATE FROM SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL)

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