You are here: / Immunity
, , ,

No “Special Relationship” Between School District and Teacher Injured by Student

The Second Department determined the absence of a special relationship between the city/school district and a teacher injured by a student required dismissal of the teacher’s action. Although a special relationship exists between a school district and the minor students, a special relationship exists between a school district and a teacher only in limited circumstances:

A school district may not be held liable for the negligent performance of its governmental function of supervising children in its charge, at least in the absence of a special duty to the person injured … . Although a school district owes a special duty to its minor students, that duty does not extend to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises … .

With regard to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises, a special relationship with a municipal defendant can be formed in three ways: ” (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'” … .

Here, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the school defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe the plaintiff a special duty… . Brumer v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07611, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

No “Special Relationship” Between Plaintiff and City, City Not Liable for Shooting of the Plaintiff by a Civilian as Police Were Leaving the Scene of a Disturbance

The Second Department determined the city was properly granted summary judgment in an action by the victim of a (civilian) shooting. Plaintiff was involved in some sort of an altercation. The police arrived and ordered the group to disperse. As the police were leaving, plaintiff was shot in the back. The court explained that the city could not be held liable for performance of a governmental function (police protection) unless there was a “special duty” owed plaintiff. No “special duty” was demonstrated here:

“Liability for a claim that a municipality negligently exercised a governmental function turns upon the existence of a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public'” … . The provision of police protection is a “classic” governmental function, and a municipality’s general duty to furnish police protection “does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created” … . A special duty—”a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff”—is “born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . As relevant here, a special relationship can be formed when the following elements are present: “(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” … .

Here, the City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that no special relationship was created through the voluntary assumption of a duty to the injured plaintiff, either individually or as a member of a specific class … . Even if there had been a duty here, the evidence submitted by the City defendants established that the injured plaintiff did not justifiably rely upon an affirmative undertaking by the City defendants … . Moore v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07249, 2nd Dept 10-7-15

 

, , ,

Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from Suit by Plaintiff Who Was Assaulted at the Shelter/Private Security Company Not Immune/Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of the Contract Between the Department of Homeless Services and the Security Company/Security Company Did Not Demonstrate It Was Free from Negligence and the Assault Was Not Foreseeable

The Second Department determined the city and the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) were immune from suit by plaintiff, who was assaulted in a city homeless shelter. The city’s obligation to provide security is a governmental function for which it cannot be held liable absent a special relationship with the plaintiff (not the case here).  However, the private security company, FJC  was not immune from suit. Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between DHS and FJC. FJC was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate it was not negligent and the attack was not foreseeable:

The plaintiff’s theory of recovery was premised upon the alleged failure of the municipal defendants to provide an adequate and proper security force to prevent attacks by third parties at the homeless shelter where the subject incident occurred. Such a claim, however, implicates a governmental function, liability for the performance of which is barred absent the breach of a special duty owed to the injured party … . Here, the municipal defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they owed no special duty of care to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Therefore, that branch of the municipal defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly granted … . …

However, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the motion of the defendant FJC Security Services, Inc. (hereinafter FJC), which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to its contention, FJC, a private, for-profit contractor of security services, is not entitled to governmental immunity … . In addition, the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between FJC and DHS. The provisions of the contract between FJC and DHS unequivocally express an intent to confer a direct benefit on the homeless clients in residence at the City shelter, such as the plaintiff, to protect them from physical injury. Thus, in order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, FJC was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that there were no triable issues of fact as to whether it was negligent in the performance of its duties, or that the assault on the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of any breach of its duties … .  FJC failed to demonstrate either. Clark v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06307, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

City Did Not Demonstrate Entitlement to Qualified Immunity for a Planning Decision Re: Design of Playground Equipment

The Second Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the city in a suit stemming from a playground injury. The complaint alleged the design of the playground equipment was unsafe. The city claimed qualified immunity for liability arising from planning decisions. But the city failed to demonstrate that it undertook a study which addressed the issue at the heart of the case:

Contrary to the City’s contention, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified governmental immunity. While a municipality will generally be accorded qualified immunity from liability arising out of its planning decisions … , a governmental body may be liable for a planning decision when its study is “plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its plan” … . Here, the evidence presented by the City 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 … . Moskovitz v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06318, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

Village Immune from Suit Alleging Negligence of Ambulance Personnel Who Responded to a 911 Call

The Second Department determined the village was entitled to summary judgment in an action alleging negligence on the part of ambulance personnel responding to a 911 call. The ambulance service is a governmental function for which the city cannot be held liable absent a special relationship with plaintiff (not the case here). The court explained the relevant law:

“When a municipality provides ambulance service by emergency medical technicians in response to a 911 call for assistance, it performs a governmental function and cannot be held liable unless it owed a special duty’ to the injured party” … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally,” or, in other words, where the municipality “voluntarily assumed a special relationship’ with the plaintiffs” … . A municipality will be held to have voluntarily assumed a duty or special relationship with the plaintiffs where there is: “(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” … . Earle v Village of Lindenhurst, 2015 NY Slip Op 06311, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

Road Washout Was Due to a Highway Design Issue for Which Adequate Remedial Planning Had Been Made—The Washout Was Not, Therefore, Caused by a Highway Maintenance Deficiency to Which the Negligence Standard Applies—State Entitled to Qualified Immunity Re: a Vehicle Accident Caused by a Sinkhole

The Third Department determined the maintenance and construction of a culvert, around which the road repeatedly washed out, was a highway design issue, for which the state was protected by qualified immunity, not a highway maintenance issue, for which a negligence standard applies. Claimant was injured when his vehicle went into a sinkhole near the culvert.

Municipalities unquestionably have a duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition … . With respect to highway safety and design, however, defendant is “accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Here, the gravamen of the claim is that the 9-foot-high, 15-foot-wide oval culvert that carried the Spuytenduiveil Creek underneath Route 8 was too small and should have been replaced. Plaintiff maintains that this condition presented a maintenance and repair issue that defendant was required to address in its proprietary capacity for which basic negligence and not sovereign immunity principles apply … . * * *

In order to successfully invoke the qualified immunity defense, defendant had the burden of demonstrating that its decision with regard to the replacement of the culvert “‘was the product of a deliberative decision-making process'” … . Even with design planning issues, liability may exist where the municipality does not adequately analyze the condition or if there is no reasonable basis for its plan … . If a remedial plan is developed, “liability may result from a failure to effectuate the plan within a reasonable period of time,” but “a reasonable delay justified by design considerations [or] a legitimate claim of funding priorities would not be actionable” … .

Based upon our review of the probative evidence, we agree with the Court of Claims that the replacement of the culvert presented a design and not a maintenance issue and that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Evans v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06288, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

, ,

Parking Lot Not “Suitable” for Recreational Use Pursuant to General Obligations Law 9-103—Statutory Assumption of Risk Re: Riding a Bicycle in the Parking Lot Not Available

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to allege a “recreational use” affirmative defense. Plaintiff’s son was injured when his bicycle struck a depressed area in defendant’s parking lot. Defendant sought to allege plaintiff’s son assumed the risk of injury because the parking lot was covered by the recreational use statute, General Obligations Law 9-103. The Fourth Department, finding that the parking lot was not “suitable” for recreational use, explained the relevant analytical criteria:

We conclude that the court properly determined that defendant’s proposed amendment patently lacks merit inasmuch as the recreational use statute does not apply to the facts of this case as a matter of law. It is undisputed that plaintiff’s son was engaged in one of the recreational activities enumerated in section 9-103, i.e., bicycle riding, when he was injured. To establish applicability of the statute, however, defendant was also required to show that its property “was suitable for the recreational activity in which plaintiff[‘s son] was participating when the accident occurred” … . “Whether a parcel of land is suitable and the immunity [of the recreational use statute] available is a question of statutory interpretation, and is, therefore, a question of law for the Court” … . Suitability is established by showing that the subject property is ” (1) physically conducive to the activity at issue, and (2) of a type that is appropriate for public use in pursuing that activity as recreation’ ” … . “A substantial indicator that the property is physically conducive to the particular activity is whether recreationists have used the property for that activity in the past; such past use by participants in the [activity] manifests the fact that the property is physically conducive to it” … . Here, defendant failed to submit any evidence that the property had been used in the past by “recreationists” for bicycle riding. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the subject property is not appropriate for public use in pursuing bicycle riding as a recreational activity … . Indeed, the Court of Appeals has made clear that recreational use immunity should apply only to property that “the Legislature would have envisioned as being opened up to the public for recreational activities” … . Here, defendant failed to establish that its employee parking lot comes within the purview of that standard. Sasso v WCA Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06066, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether State Exercised Due Diligence In Addressing Recurrent Blowing-Snow Problem on Highway

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined questions of fact had been raised about whether the state had taken adequate measures to address a recurrent “blowing snow” condition in the vicinity of plaintiff’s-decedent’s highway accident. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the “storm in progress” rule should be applied to blowing snow on a roadway. Rather the inquiry is whether the defendant exercised reasonable diligence in maintaining the roadway under the prevailing circumstances. There was evidence that the area in question was the site of several accidents and that installation of a snow fence may have prevented the problem. The state was unable to demonstrate it had undertaken a relevant study and was therefore unable to invoke qualified immunity:

… [I]t is a matter of established law that “[t]he pertinent inquiry is whether [defendant] exercised reasonable diligence in maintaining [the roadway] under the prevailing circumstances” … . Applying this analysis, ongoing adverse conditions do not excuse defendant from its duty to remediate dangerous conditions, but are relevant to the inquiry as to whether it exercised reasonable diligence in doing so … . * * *

Defendant may be held liable in negligence where it “failed to diligently remedy [a] dangerous condition[] once it was provided with actual or constructive notice or [where] it did not correct or warn of a recurrent dangerous condition of which it had notice” … . “Once [defendant] is made aware of a dangerous traffic condition it must undertake reasonable study thereof with an eye toward alleviating the danger” … . * * *

… [A]n issue of fact exists with respect to whether defendant’s actions in seeking to remedy the recurring hazard of windblown snow by relying solely on plowing were reasonable. * * *

… [D]efendant failed to show that it was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. When defendant undertakes a “stud[y] [of] a dangerous condition and determines as part of a reasonable plan of governmental services that certain steps need not be taken, that decision may not form the basis of liability” … . Although defendant contends that its decision not to utilize a snow fence or other measures intended to mitigate the hazard of windblown snow resulted from a “reasoned plan or study,” the record is inadequate to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that such a study was undertaken … . Frechette v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05538, 3rd Dept 6-25-15

 

, ,

Construction at County Airport Was a Governmental Function—County is Therefore “Immune” from a Suit Alleging the Construction Caused a Highway White-Out Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s-Decedent’s Death in a Collision

Plaintiffs alleged that construction by the defendant-county caused snow to blow across the highway leading to the “white-out” which resulted in plaintiff’s decedent’s death in a collision. The Fourth Department determined the county was immune from suit because the relevant construction was a governmental, not proprietary function, and the county did not owe a special duty to the plaintiffs:

… “[I]f the [municipal defendant] acted in a proprietary role, i.e., when its activities essentially substitute for or supplement traditionally private enterprises . . . , ordinary rules of negligence apply. If, however, the [defendant] acted in a governmental capacity, i.e., when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to general police powers . . . , the court must undertake a separate inquiry to determine whether the [defendant] owes a special duty to the injured party. In the event that the plaintiff fails to prove such a duty, the [defendant] is insulated from liability” … . A municipal defendant can therefore establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that its allegedly negligent acts were undertaken in a governmental rather than a proprietary capacity, and that it did not owe the plaintiff a special duty.

We conclude that defendants established on their motion that the construction of the tunnels and retaining wall was undertaken in a governmental capacity … , inasmuch as the construction was the result of defendants’ discretionary decision-making after defendants consulted with experts to determine how to make improvements to the Airport property in compliance with, inter alia, safety regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration … . We further conclude that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendants owed a special duty to plaintiffs or were acting in a proprietary capacity … . Klepanchuk v County of Monroe, 2015 NY Slip Op 05323, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

, , ,

Town Board’s Terminating, Without Notice, Plaintiff’s Construction Project Violated Plaintiff’s Right to Substantive Due Process/Town Was Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity

The plaintiff had cleared the way for building on land which included wetlands by obtaining the necessary permits and waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) when, without notice, the town board passed a resolution rescinding a previously issued sewer tap-in waiver and terminating the construction project. Among other theories, plaintiff sued under 42 USC 1983 (deprivation of property without due process of law) and won. On appeal the due process violation verdict was upheld. The Fourth Department explained the criteria for the due process cause of action and noted that the defendant town was not entitled to qualified immunity because the town board’s actions violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights:

… [W]e note that the Court of Appeals has set forth a two-part test for substantive due process violations: “[f]irst, [a plaintiff] must establish a cognizable property interest, meaning a vested property interest, or more than a mere expectation or hope to retain the permit and continue their improvements; they must show that pursuant to State or local law, they had a legitimate claim of entitlement to continue construction’ . . . Second, [a plaintiff] must show that the governmental action was wholly without legal justification” … . Under the first prong, “a legitimate claim of entitlement to a permit can exist only where there is either a certainty or a very strong likelihood’ that an application for approval would have been granted” … . “Where an issuing authority has discretion in approving or denying a permit, a clear entitlement can exist only when that discretion is so narrowly circumscribed that approval of a proper application is virtually assured’ “… . * * *

We reject defendant’s contention that the state constitutional claims should be dismissed because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. ” A government official is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’ ” … . Defendant failed to establish that it was objectively reasonable for the Town Board to believe that its conduct in withdrawing the sewer tap-in waiver request on … was appropriate … . Instead, the evidence established that the Town Board members acted without knowing the history of the project and acted knowing that only the Planning Board had to take action, i.e., to give site plan approval for the property. Despite the existence of plaintiff’s constitutionally protected property interest in the … tap-in waiver request, the Town Board acted … to withdraw that waiver request, which was a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As such, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Acquest Wehrle, LLC v Town of Amherst, 2015 NY Slip Op 05346, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

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