You are here: / Immunity
, ,

No Standing to Challenge Governmental Action—No Injury-In-Fact and the Type of Potential Injury Alleged Does Not Fall Within the Zone of Interest Underlying the Statute

The Third Department determined that the petitioners, manufacturers of electronically-operated partitions used in school buildings, did not have standing to bring an action compelling the NYC Department of Education to comply with the Education Law (Education Law 409-f) and regulations with respect to the maintenance of the partitions.  The petitioners argued that they are subject to liability if the partitions are not maintained in accordance with the law:

The two-part test for the threshold legal requirement of standing to challenge governmental action requires, first, an injury-in-fact and, second, that the injury “fall[s] within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision” … .  Petitioners contend that they have been injured in that their employees might get hurt working on improperly maintained safety devices, they are potentially exposed to litigation if a device installed by them is not properly maintained by respondents and causes injury, and their insurance premiums have increased due to heightened exposure to liability.  We agree with Supreme Court that petitioners are essentially asserting a general challenge to respondents’ administration of the relevant statute and regulation …and further that their asserted injuries are too speculative and conjectural to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement … .

Even if a sufficient injury-in-fact was asserted, petitioners also failed to show that they are within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute and regulation. Enacted after the tragic death of a young student crushed by a school partition …, the purpose of the law was to protect primarily students … and not individuals paid to work specifically on the safety devices. … . Matter of Gym Door Repairs, Inc v New York City Department of Education, 516661, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

,

Commissioner of Labor Can Not Be Sued for Her Exercise of Discretionary Judgment Even Where Action Taken by Commissioner Resulted from a Mistaken Interpretation of Labor Law Statutes

The Third Department determined that the Commissioner of Labor was immune from a lawsuit stemming from her orders to seize and destroy fireworks.  At the time of the seizure and destruction, the Commissioner believed the fireworks were “explosives” within the meaning of Labor Law 451 and that the storage of the fireworks violated Labor Law 453.  It was subsequently determined by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) that the fireworks were not “explosives” within the meaning of the Labor Law. In finding that the Commissioner could not be sued for her exercise of discretion (seizing and destroying the fireworks), the court wrote:

As relevant here, this statute authorizes the Commissioner “to seize and impound any explosives found within this state . . . which are in apparent violation” of Labor Law article 16, “where the [C]ommissioner has reason to believe that public safety is endangered by such explosives” (Labor Law § 460 [1] [emphases added]).  Further, “where, in the opinion of the [C]ommissioner, the . . . storage . . . or location of explosives . . . [represents] a danger to public safety, the [C]ommissioner may, without [a] hearing and without liability . . . to the owner . . . direct the seizure and destruction of such explosives” (Labor Law § 460 [5] [emphasis added]).

Under the … statutory authority, the Commissioner was empowered – in her discretion – to seize explosives that appeared to be in violation of Labor Law article 16 if she had reason to believe that they endangered public safety, and to order their destruction “without liability.”  Under settled law, “the common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions” …  That is, “[g]overnment action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the [claimant]” … .  The Commissioner’s determination under Labor Law § 460 to order the seizure and, later, the destruction of the fireworks on the belief – albeit later determined by the IBA to be mistaken – that they constituted “explosives” within her jurisdiction under Labor Law former § 451 (1) was the epitome of a discretionary judgment call and an action taken in the performance of her official duties and governmental functions.  Esposito v State of New York, 515963, 3rd Dept 12-5-13

 

, ,

Town Could Not Be Liable for Discretionary Judgment Made by EMT (Third Dept).

The Third Department determined that an EMT employed by the town made a discretionary judgment that plaintiff’s decedent did not need life support during transport to the hospital.  Plaintiff’s decedent’s condition worsened during the trip and he died a week later.  Because the EMT’s judgment was discretionary, the town could not be held liable:

The Court of Appeals recently held that when a municipality provides emergency first responder services in response to a 911 call for assistance, as the Town did here by dispatching its paramedic, “it performs a governmental function[, rather than a proprietary one,] and cannot be held liable unless it owed a ‘special duty’ to the injured party” … .  A plaintiff generally must first establish the existence of a special duty before it becomes necessary for the court to address whether the governmental function immunity defense applies …, but the special relationship issue is irrelevant where the government action in question is discretionary … .  “Government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general” … .  Discretionary authority involves “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” … .

Although the record here at least arguably contains factual issues concerning whether the Town voluntarily assumed a duty to decedent or plaintiff, thereby creating a special duty …, we need not address that question because the Town’s actions were discretionary.  The Town’s paramedic exercised his discretion in making medical determinations concerning decedent’s condition … . DiMeo… v Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services, Inc, 516264, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

,

Criteria for County’s Immunity from Village Ordinances Explained

In remitting the matter to create a more complete record, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for determining whether the county is immune from the requirements of village ordinances prohibiting the use of the village sanitary system for a county jail within the village limits:

We agree with the Village that the record is inadequate to make a determination, based upon a “balancing of public interests,” whether the County is immune from the requirements of those amendments with respect to its siting of the proposed Facility … .  The factors to be weighed in making that determination are “the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests[,] . . . the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, . . . alternative methods of providing the needed improvement[,] . . . intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard” … .  Here, inasmuch as the record is inadequate to permit the appropriate balancing of those factors, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination, based upon a more complete record, whether the County is immune from the requirements of the Village zoning ordinance… . Matter of County of Herkimer v Village of Herkimer, 937, 4th Dept 9-27-13.

 

, , ,

“Professional Judgment Rule” Did Not Preclude Lawsuit; Plaintiff Bitten by Police Dog While Assisting Police in a Search

The plaintiff was bitten by a police dog while assisting the police in a search.  Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the Second Department affirmed, explaining there was a question of fact about whether the “professional judgment rule” applied:

“The professional judgment rule insulates a municipality from liability for its employees’ performance of their duties where the . . . conduct involves the exercise of professional judgment such as electing one among many acceptable methods of carrying out tasks, or making tactical decisions” … . However, “the immunity afforded a municipality for its employee’s discretionary conduct does not extend to situations where the employee, a police officer, violates acceptable police practice” … .

Here, the defendants did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A question of fact with respect to whether the conduct of the dog’s handler was consistent with acceptable police practice was presented by the defendants’ evidentiary submissions … . Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied … .  Newsome v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 05805, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, , ,

School District Did Not Owe Special Duty to Plaintiff Injured in Fight After Hours on School Grounds; Failure to Lock Gate Not Proximate Cause of Injury

Plaintiff was assaulted on an athletic filed owned by defendant school district while in a group which was on the field without permission at 9:30 pm. The plaintiff alleged the school district was negligent in not providing security and in not locking the gates to the field. The Second Department determined the school district owed no special duty to the plaintiff and the failure to lock the gates was not the proximate cause of the injury:

The “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties . . . is a governmental function . . . and . . . no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” … . This special duty arises when a municipality assumes an affirmative duty to act on behalf of a specific party, and that party justifiably relies on the direct assurances of the municipality’s agents … .

… The mere provision of security does not give rise to a special duty of protection …. The District established that it did not make direct assurances regarding security to the infant plaintiff and that he did not rely on the provision of security in deciding to congregate with others on the field. * * *

A public entity may not escape liability for negligent acts which it performs in a proprietary capacity and which are a proximate cause of an injury which was sustained as the result of a foreseeable act by a third party … . However, the District demonstrated, prima facie, that the failure to lock the gates accessing the field was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries, since the assault here was not a foreseeable act. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Weisbecker v West Islip Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY slip Op 05743, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

, ,

Complaint Against Town for Sewage Backup in Home Dismissed

The Fourth Department affirmed the dismissal of a negligence complaint against a town arising from the backup of sewage in plaintiffs’ house.  The decision includes a concise but complete explanation of the issues relevant to municipal liability for negligence:

In an action against a municipality such as defendant, it is “the fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care.  Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to [perform certain governmental functions], this 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.  This is an offshoot of the general proposition that ‘[t]o sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally’ ” … ..“The second principle relevant here relates not to an element of plaintiffs’ negligence claim but to a defense that [is] potentially available to [defendant]—the governmental function immunity defense . . . [T]he common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions . . . [pursuant to which] ‘[a] public employee’s discretionary acts—meaning conduct involving the exercise of reasoned judgment—may not result in the municipality’s liability even when the conduct is negligent’ ” … ..  Middleton v Town of Salina, 604, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Malicious Prosecution Action Against County, Medical Examiner and District Attorney Survived Motion to Dismiss/Prosecutorial and Governmental Immunity Doctrines Explained

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a malicious prosecution (intentional tort) action against two counties, a district attorney and a medical examiner.  The action was commenced after plaintiff was arrested and indicted for the death of his seven-month-old daughter (the indictment was subsequently dismissed).  In explaining the nature of the action, the Fourth Department wrote:

Once a suspect has been indicted, the grand jury action creates a presumption of probable cause….  “If plaintiff is to succeed in his malicious prosecution action after he has been indicted, he must establish that the indictment was produced by fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith” … .  Here, the complaint sufficiently alleges fraud, perjury, and conduct undertaken in bad faith. Plaintiff alleged that the police concluded in their initial investigation, based upon statements by [the medical examiner], that the infant’s death was accidental, and the case was closed. However, after plaintiff’s wife spoke with [the district attorney], [the district attorney] allegedly began a campaign to bring charges against plaintiff despite knowing that plaintiff’s wife was giving inconsistent information. Plaintiff alleged that [the district attorney] encouraged or coached [the medical examiner] to provide false information to the police and false testimony to the grand jury regarding the infant’s cause of death and time of death. Plaintiff further alleged that [the district attorney] and [the medical examiner] were aware that the information was not mentioned in the autopsy report, was not supported by any document, and had no scientific basis.

In concluding the prosecutorial and governmental-function immunity doctrines did not require the dismissal of the complaint, the Fourth Department described the elements of both as follows:

Prosecutorial immunity provides absolute immunity “for conduct of prosecutors that was ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process’ ” …, i.e., conduct that involves “ ‘initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case’ ” ….  Thus, a prosecutor’s conduct in preparing for those functions may be absolutely immune, but acts of investigation are not ….  Prosecutors are afforded only qualified immunity when acting in an investigative capacity…   The focus is on the conduct for which immunity is claimed … .It is therefore the case that, where the prosecutor advises the police … or performs investigative work in order to decide whether a suspect should be arrested …, the prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity.  * * *The governmental function immunity defense “shield[s] public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions” …. This limitation on liability “ ‘reflects a value judgment that—despite injury to a member of the public—the broader interest in having government officers and employees free to exercise judgment and discretion in their official functions, unhampered by fear of second- guessing and retaliatory lawsuits, outweighs the benefits to be had from imposing liability for that injury’ ”….

“Whether an action of a governmental employee or official is cloaked with any governmental immunity requires an analysis of the functions and duties of the actor’s particular position and whether they inherently entail the exercise of some discretion and judgment . … If these functions and duties are essentially clerical or routine, no immunity will attach” …. Discretionary 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” …. If a functional analysis shows that the employee’s position is sufficiently discretionary, then the municipal defendant must also show “that the discretion possessed by its employees was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated” )….

“[G]overnmental immunity does not attach to every action of an official having discretionary duties but [attaches] only to those involving an exercise of that discretion” …. .

Here, the functions and duties of…the Medical Examiner include conducting an autopsy, reporting his findings to the police, and testifying before a grand jury.  The functions and duties of …an assistant district attorney include evaluating the evidence assembled by police officers. Those functions and duties are discretionary …..

Based on plaintiff’s allegations, however, it cannot be said that the conduct of [the medical examiner] and [the district attorney] was related to an exercise of their discretionary duties. Plaintiff alleged that [the medical examiner] fabricated findings and gave testimony that was not included in his autopsy report, and that [the district attorney] coached [the medical examiner] to lie. That alleged conduct plainly did not involve the exercise of “reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” …..  Kirchner v County of Niagara …, 561, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

, , ,

Notice of Claim (Pursuant to Court of Claims Act) Not Specific Enough

The Third Department upheld the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because the notice of claim was not specific enough.  In describing the statutory criteria, the Third Department wrote:

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must set forth the nature of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the damages or injuries and  the total sum  claimed. “Because suits against [defendant] are allowed only by [defendant’s] waiver of sovereign immunity and  in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed”….   Although “absolute exactness” is not required…, the claim must “‘provide a  sufficiently detailed  description  of  the  particulars of the claim to enable [defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and  extent of its liability'” … .  Morra v State of New York, 515751, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, EMPLOYEE

, ,

No Demonstration Burst Water Pipe Could Have Been the Result of Negligent Inspection or Maintenance; Municipality Immune from Negligent Design

In affirming Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant town with respect to damages allegedly caused by a burst storm water pipe, the Second Department determined plaintiffs did not raise a question of fact concerning negligent inspection or maintenance:

“A municipality is immune from liability arising out of claims that it negligently designed [a] sewerage system” or storm drainage system”… . However, a municipality is not immune from liability arising out of claims that it negligently maintained its storm drainage system…. For the plaintiffs to recover under a theory of negligent inspection or maintenance of the storm drainage system, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendants had ” notice of a dangerous condition or ha[d] reason to believe that the pipes ha[d] shifted or deteriorated and [were] likely to cause injury,’ that the [defendants] failed to make reasonable efforts to inspect and repair the defect,’ and that such failure caused the plaintiffs’ injuries”….  Bilotta v Town of Harrison, 2013 NY Slip Op 03444, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

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