You are here: / Immunity
,

Criteria for Negligent Highway Design Explained—Qualified Immunity Is Part of the Analysis of Liability

The Third Department explained the analytical criteria associated with allegations of negligent highway design, including qualified immunity. Here it was alleged that a rock outcropping obscured on-coming traffic and the measures taken by the state to reduce the hazard were inadequate.  The case was dismissed because the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the highway-design problems constituted the proximate cause of the collision:

“[I]n the field of traffic design engineering, [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. Once [defendant] is made aware of a dangerous traffic condition it must undertake reasonable study thereof with an eye toward alleviating the danger” … . If defendant’s response to an identified hazard is unreasonably delayed, defendant must demonstrate either that the delay “was necessary in order to study and formulate a reasonable safety plan, that the delay was itself part of a considered plan of action taken on the advice of experts, or that the delay stemmed from a legitimate ordering of priorities with other projects based on the availability of funding” … .

Although the parties continue to debate whether, consistent with the foregoing principles, defendant’s response to the acknowledged hazard was adequate and, further, whether the documented delay in cutting back the offending outcropping was unreasonable, these issues need not detain us. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s efforts in this regard indeed were inadequate and/or unreasonably delayed, thereby establishing that defendant was negligent, claimant failed to demonstrate that such negligence was the proximate cause of decedent’s accident. Graff v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01847, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

, , , ,

Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Is a Proper Basis for a General Municipal Law 205-a Claim

The First Department determined the alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a(3)(a)(1)  was sufficient to support an action by firefighters against the City pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-a.  Firefighters were injured and killed jumping from a building without personal ropes. The failure to provide personal ropes is the basis of the suit.  Governmental immunity did not bar the suit:

The City unavailingly contends that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) cannot provide a valid predicate for any General Municipal Law § 205-a claim. However, the statute, known as the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), which imposes a general duty on an employer to provide employees with “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees” (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]), is sufficient since it is ” a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties'” … .

Moreover, the City failed to “show that it did not negligently violate any relevant government provision or that, if it did, the violation did not directly or indirectly cause plaintiff’s injuries” … . There is evidence, including testimony and an investigative report, that the failure to issue personal ropes to the firefighters contributed to the injuries and deaths suffered when the firefighters jumped from windows using either no safety devices or a single rope that had been independently purchased by one of the firefighters. The City is also not entitled to dismissal of these claims pursuant to governmental function immunity, since the evidence concerning the removal of existing personal ropes in 2000, and the failure to provide new ropes in the period of more than four years from then until the fire giving rise to these claims, raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes “actually resulted from discretionary decision-making — i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stolowski v 234 E 178th St LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01732, 1st Dept 3-3-15

 

, , ,

Town Board and Police Commission Members Entitled to Immunity and Qualified Privilege Re: Defamation Causes of Action—Criteria Described/Power to Terminate Probationary Police Officer Described

The Fourth Department determined statements attributed to members of the town board and police commission with respect to the reasons for plaintiff’s termination as a probationary police officer were protected by governmental immunity and qualified privilege (explaining the relevant criteria).  In addition, the court explained the power to terminate a probationary police officer:

There is complete immunity from liability for defamation for ” an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government who is entrusted by law with administrative or executive policy-making responsibilities of considerable dimension’ . . . , with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” … . Here, the Town Board has the statutory authority to “make, adopt and enforce rules, orders and regulations for the government, discipline, administration and disposition of the police department and of the members thereof” (Town Law § 154) and, as members of the Police Commission, [defendants] were delegated “all the powers relative to police matters conferred upon the town board” (§ 150 [2]). We therefore conclude that Brooks, Sullivan, and Ulinski were entitled to absolute immunity because “members of the Town Board enjoy an absolute privilege against a claim of defamation where . . . the defamatory statements are made in the discharge of their responsibilities about matters within the ambit of their duties” …, and “[t]he privilege of absolute immunity . . . extends to those of subordinate rank who exercise delegated powers’ ” … . …

A qualified privilege arises when a person makes a good[ ]faith, bona fide communication upon a subject in which he or she has an interest, or a legal, moral or societal interest to speak, and the communication is made to a person with a corresponding interest’ ” … . Here, defendants submitted evidence that, at the time of the alleged slanderous communications, Ulinski was a member of the Police Commission and, therefore, had an interest in plaintiff’s performance as a probationary police officer, and that Ulinski made the communications to persons with a corresponding interest in plaintiff’s performance, namely to a member of the Town Board, and to the president of the union that represented plaintiff … . We further conclude that plaintiffs “failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statements were motivated solely by malice” … . * * *

As a probationary police officer, plaintiff could be ” dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all[,]’ . . . [and he] had no right to challenge the termination by way of a hearing or otherwise, absent a showing that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason” … . Fiore v Town of Whitestown, 2015 NY Slip Op 01361, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether City Had a Special Relationship with Plaintiff Such that the City Owed a Duty to the Plaintiff Over and Above the Duty Owed to the Public at Large

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a partial dissent, determined that there was a question of fact whether the city had a special relationship with the plaintiff, such that the city had a duty to protect the plaintiff from her abusive husband. After police officers assured plaintiff her husband (Coleson), who had been arrested, was going to jail, she was attacked and stabbed by him.  Plaintiff’s seven-year-old son was with her when she was attacked but did not witness the stabbing because he had been placed in a closet for protection by a bystander.  Because plaintiff’s son did not see the stabbing, the court concluded he was not in the “zone of danger” when his mother was stabbed:

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” … . “[A] duty to exercise reasonable care toward [a] plaintiff” is “born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . This Court has determined that a special relationship 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 in the face of a known blatant and dangerous safety violation”… .

In Cuffy v City of New York (69 NY2d 255), we listed the requisite elements for a duty voluntarily assumed:

“(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 (id. at 260). We noted that “the injured party’s reliance is . . . critical” (id. at 261).

Applying the Cuffy factors here, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed. With regard to the first factor, a jury could conclude that the police officers made promises to protect plaintiff. Plaintiff was notified by the police that Coleson was arrested, that he was in front of a judge to be sentenced, would be in jail for a while, and that the police would be in contact with her. As to the second factor, the police officers conceivably knew that Coleson would harm plaintiff if he was not apprehended, as evidenced by his arrest and the issuance of an order of protection to plaintiff. Given that plaintiff was told by Officer Reyes that everything was in process and she would keep in contact, there is an issue of fact as to whether the police knew that their inaction could lead to harm. The third factor is easily met, as plaintiff had direct contact with the police, by the police responding to her call about Coleson’s threats, making an arrest, escorting her to the police precinct, and plaintiff’s phone call with Officer Reyes. Finally, regarding a party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking, given the assurances that plaintiff received from Officer Reyes that Coleson was in jail and that he would be there for a while, a jury could find that it was reasonable for plaintiff to believe that Coleson would be jailed for the foreseeable future, and that the police would contact her if that turned out not to be the case. Coleson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08213, CtApp 11-24-14

 

, ,

25 Minute Response Time by Fire Department Was Not Actionable—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Fire Department—Fire Department’s Duty Is to the Public At Large

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined a complaint against a fire department alleging a “delinquent” (25 minute) response to a 911 call should have been dismissed.  The fire department’s duty is to the public at large and there was no special relationship between the plaintiffs and the fire department:

Generally, a municipality may not be held liable for the failure to provide fire protection because the duty to provide such protection is owed to the public at large, rather than to any particular individual … . An exception to this rule exists where there is a special relationship between the municipality and the injured parties … . “The elements of this special relationship’ are: (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” … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, there was no question of fact as to whether there was “direct contact” between the defendant and the plaintiffs. * * *

Moreover, there was no question of fact as to whether the plaintiffs justifiably relied upon any affirmative undertaking by the defendant. In this respect, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s conduct “lulled [them] into a false sense of security, induced [them] either to relax [their] own vigilance or forgo other avenues of protection, and thereby placed [them] in a worse position than [they] would have been had the [defendant] never assumed the duty” … . Kirchberger v Senisi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07986, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Entitled to Damages from the City—Plaintiff Had a “Special Relationship” with the City and Was Injured When a City Employee, Performing Ministerial Functions, Directed Plaintiff to Perform a Dangerous Task—“Special Relationship,” Which Gave Rise to a Duty Owed by the City to the Plaintiff, Defined

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion by defendant-city to set aside the verdict.  The city had been held responsible for plaintiff’s injury based upon the jury’s findings that there was a “special relationship” between the city and the plaintiff and the city-employee was performing ministerial, not discretionary, acts when he directed the plaintiff’s work.  Plaintiff was injured when the city’s plumbing inspector directed plaintiff to perform a dangerous air pressure test:

The Court of Appeals has recognized three situations in which a duty may arise by way of a special relationship: “(1) the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted; (2) the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally; or (3) the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Of the three ways that a duty may arise out of a special relationship, only the third is at issue on this appeal—whether the appellants took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the jury’s determination that the City and its inspector took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence … . Delanoy v City of White Plains, 2914 NY Slip Op 07615, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

, ,

Governmental Immunity Re: Plaintiff Does Not Insulate Governmental Defendants from Contribution Claim by Another Defendant to Whom the Governmental Defendants Owed a Duty of Care

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of an action against the governmental defendants (the “appellants”) based upon governmental immunity.  The appellants had referred one Smith to another defendant, the North Amityville Community Economic Council (NACEC), as a potential employee.  The appellants had agreed not to refer anyone with a criminal record to NACEC.  Smith was a sex offender who was hired by NACEC.  Smith sexually assaulted the plaintiff at the NACEC facility.  After explaining the relevant immunity criteria in depth, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the action against the appellants.  The Second Department also determined Supreme Court properly refused to dismiss the cross-claims against the appellants by NACEC, noting that governmental immunity did not protect the appellants from a contribution claim by a defendant to whom the appellants owed a duty of care:

Here, the appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of governmental immunity by demonstrating that they did not voluntarily assume a special duty to the plaintiff … . Furthermore, the plaintiff does not allege that the appellants violated any statutory duty, and the appellants established that they did not assume positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation … .

“[A] defendant may seek contribution from a third party even if the injured plaintiff has no direct right of recovery against that party, either because of a procedural bar or because of a substantive legal rule. A contribution claim can be made even when the contributor has no duty to the injured plaintiff. In such situations, a claim of contribution may be asserted if there has been a breach of a duty that runs from the contributor to the defendant who has been held liable” … . Here, the appellants agreed not to refer anyone to NACEC who had a criminal background. Nonetheless, Smith, who was a level three sex offender, was referred to NACEC by the appellants. Under these circumstances, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants breached a duty of care to NACEC … . Tara NP v Western Suffolk Bd of Coop Educ Servs, 2014 NY Slip Op 06189, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

, ,

City’s Operation of a Parking Garage is a Proprietary Not Governmental Function—City Can Be Sued For Failing to Provide Adequate Safety to Patrons

The Second Department determined a wrongful death action against the city alleging failure to provide adequate safety measures in a parking garage (owned and operated by the city) could go forward.  The court determined the operation of the garage was a proprietary function and the city could therefore be sued:

The security deficiencies alleged by the plaintiffs do not involve governmental functions or arise out of a pure “exercise of discretion . . . with respect to [overall] security measures and the deployment of limited police resources” … . The instant matter does not involve allegations of, for example, the lack of patrol cars or officers on foot patrolling the garage and the lack of general police protection …, “mobilization of police resources for the exhaustive study of the risk of terrorist attack, the policy-based planning of effective counterterrorist strategy, and the consequent allocation of such resources” …, participation by a teacher in supervising a playground as part of a school district’s overall security system strategy …, or a policy decision with respect to how the issue of homelessness should be addressed … . Rather, the gravaman of the complaint is not that the City failed to properly allocate government resources and services to the public at large, which was utilizing the garage, but that it failed in its capacity as a commercial owner of a public parking garage to meet the basic proprietary obligation of providing minimal security for its garage property via lighting, alarms, cameras, and warning signs. These measures are within the normal range of security measures necessary to satisfy the duty of care owed by any landlord or commercial property owner to its tenants or invitees. In the “continuum of responsibility to individuals and society deriving from its governmental and proprietary functions,” the lapses complained of encompass a failure to maintain the reasonable security measures expected of any landlord … .

Since the City acted in its proprietary, rather than its governmental, capacity here, we must consider the issue of whether or not the attack upon the decedent was foreseeable in light of a landlord’s duty to take minimal precautions to protect its tenants and invitees from foreseeable harm … . Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that triable issues of fact existed as to the foreseeability of an attack upon the decedent, thus precluding the award of summary judgment to the City … . Granata v City of White Plains, 2014 NY Slip Op 06053, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

County’s Failure to Demonstrate Proper Maintenance of Sewer System Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined the county was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing a complaint based upon negligent maintenance of a sewer system:

A municipality is immune from liability “arising out of claims that it negligently designed [a] sewerage system” … . However, a municipality “is not entitled to governmental immunity arising out of claims that it negligently maintained the sewerage system as these claims challenge conduct which is ministerial in nature” … . In order for a municipality to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in sewer backup cases, the municipality must show that it had no ” notice of a dangerous condition,'” and that “it regularly inspected and maintained the subject sewer line” … .

Here, although there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant County of Suffolk had prior notice of a dangerous condition in the subject sewer system, the County’s proof regarding its regular inspection and maintenance of the sewer system was deficient. Gugel v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 06054, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

Town Not Liable for Negligently Picking Up Personal Items from Driveway During Garbage Collection—Garbage Collection Is a Ministerial Function—No Special Relationship with Plaintiff

The Second Department determined the town was not liable for picking up items plaintiff had placed in his driveway to dry out after a storm.  The items were picked up as “bulk garbage” prior to the date bulk-garbage collection was slated to begin:

Garbage collection is considered a governmental function … . A municipality cannot be held liable for negligence in the performance of discretionary acts, but can be held liable for negligence in the performance of ministerial acts, if there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant … . The difference between ministerial or discretionary acts is described thusly: ” discretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'”… . Garbage collection falls within the definition of a ministerial function.

A special relationship based upon a duty voluntarily assumed by the municipality requires proof of the following elements: ” (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'” … . No facts were alleged indicating that the defendants undertook an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, no basis was alleged to impose liability upon the defendants, based on the negligent destruction of property. Katz v Town of Clarkstown NY, NY Slip Op 05843, 2nd Dept 8-20-14 

 

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