You are here: / Immunity
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.

The Third Depatment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined questions of fact had been raised about governmental immunity and tort liability arising from contract in a property-damage case arising from road renovation work. Village officials and the contractor hired to do the road work (Merritt) decided to allow what was thought to be a small water leak to remain unaddressed temporarily. The leak was apparently created when a fire hydrant was removed to accommodate the road work. At some point the water main burst, causing flooding and a mudslide which damaged plaintiffs' property. The questions before the court were whether the village should be allowed to amend its answer with a governmental-immunity affirmative defense, and whether an indemnification cross-claim against the contractor (Merritt) by the village should have been allowed. The Third Department answered both questions in the affirmative. Although maintenance of a water system for fire protection is a governmental function to which immunity applies, maintenance of the water system generally is a proprietary function, to which immunity would not apply. With respect to Merritt, although tort liability does not usually arise from a contract, here there was a question of fact whether Merritt “launched an instrument of harm” which would trigger liability in tort. With respect to whether governmental immunity applied, the court explained:

A threshold inquiry in determining if a municipality is entitled to immunity in a negligence action is “whether the municipal entity was engaged in a proprietary function or acted in a governmental capacity at the time the claim arose” … . Where the alleged negligence arose out of proprietary, rather than governmental acts, no immunity will attach and a municipality will generally be liable to the same extent as a private actor … . The maintenance of a municipal water system to provide water for the private use of residents has been deemed to be a proprietary function … . However, where the alleged negligence stems from municipal efforts to protect the safety of the public by “aggregating and supplying water for the extinguishment of fires,” it is engaged in a government function entitled to immunity … . These established rules can present challenges as applied to modern municipal water systems that are used to provide water to both homes and hydrants … . In such cases, where a municipality can be seen to be serving dual governmental and proprietary roles, we must look to “the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred” … . Billera v Merritt Constr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02503, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

MUNCIPAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/NEGLIGENCE  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)

, ,

County Did Not Demonstrate Its Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Re: Obstructed Intersection

The Second Department determined the county did not demonstrate (as a matter of law) it was entitled to qualified immunity for  the placement of a sensor station and the failure to trim the nearby hedges. The complaint alleged the sensor station and hedges obstructed plaintiff’s view of oncoming traffic, resulting in an accident. The county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The court explained the analytical criteria:

A governmental body owes a nondelegable duty to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . However, a governmental body is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway safety planning decision … . Such immunity is predicated upon an ability to demonstrate that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberative decision-making process … .

Contrary to the County’s contention, it did not sustain its prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity. The County failed to demonstrate, inter alia, that its placement of the sensor station cabinet and its decision to refrain from trimming the hedge were highway safety planning decisions resulting from a deliberative decision-making process of the type afforded immunity from judicial interference … . Iacone v Passanisi, 2015 NY Slip Op 08386, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

, ,

The State’s “Donate Life Registry” (Re: Consent to Organ Donation) Is a Governmental, Not Proprietary, Function

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the “donate life registry,” which is based upon consent to organ donation indicated on driver’s license renewal applications, was a governmental, not a proprietary, function. Therefore the state may not be held liable for negligence with respect to organ donation absent a special relationship. No special relationship was alleged here. The lawsuit alleged claimant’s mother did not consent to the donation of her organs and that the Department of Health negligently interpreted a drawn line on the renewal application as a signature. The Court of Claims had upheld the “violation of the right of sepulcher” cause of action. The opinion includes detailed discussions of the law surrounding governmental versus proprietary functions, as well as the nature of governmental involvement in organ donation:

Quintessential examples of purely governmental functions include police and fire protection … and traffic regulation … . On the other hand, a governmental entity acts in a purely proprietary capacity when it serves as a landlord by virtue of its ownership and maintenance of property … . In determining where along the continuum a governmental entity’s challenged conduct falls, it is necessary to examine “‘the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred'”… . * * *

By establishing the Donate Life Registry and facilitating the identification of organ and tissue donors and the making of anatomical gifts through DMV applications and renewals, defendant is protecting and promoting the health and welfare of the public through the exercise of its general police powers. It is axiomatic that “‘[p]rotecting health and safety is one of municipal government’s most important duties'”… . Drever v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07726, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, , ,

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

 

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