You are here: / Immunity
, , ,

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

 

, ,

Governmental Immunity Applied to Preclude Recovery by Bicyclist​

In finding the City was not liable for injury to a bicyclist because of governmental immunity, the First Department wrote:

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when his bicycle hit a depression in a grassy area, after he was diverted from the bicycle path in a City park due to cleaning activities by defendants’ employees on a retaining wall, defendants moved to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s… * * *  …[D]ismissal of the complaint is warranted on the … ground … that defendants’ employees were engaged in a governmental function giving rise to the governmental immunity defense. Diverting traffic to protect the public from the harsh chemicals used in the cleaning process was a discretionary act performed by public employees in the exercise of reasoned judgment … . Stashkevetch v City of New York, 2013, NY Slip Op 03418, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

, ,

2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of Control of Her Vehicle

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ determination that a 21/2 inch drop off in the shoulder of a road was not the proximate cause of a driver’s losing control of her vehicle.  The doctrine of “qualified immunity” in connection with road defects is explained. Marrow… v State…, CA 12-00974, 241, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Immunity for Land Owners Allowing Use of Land by Snowmobilers

Plaintiff’s decedent was killed while riding a snowmobile on a trail on privately owned land.  Plaintiff’s snowmobile struck the side of a tractor-trailer carrying logs.  The private logging road where the accident occurred was also used as a snowmobile trail.  Plaintiff sued the owner of the land.  The Third Department upheld the trial court’s ruling that the landowner was immune from suit under General Obligations Law 9-103, because the statutory “consideration exception” did not apply.  Plaintiff contended that certain “recreational leases” (for hunting and fishing) constituted “consideration” for the use of the trail, triggering the immunity exception.    The Third Department determined those leases had nothing to do with snowmobiling and noted:

General Obligations Law § 9-103 provides immunity, subject to certain exceptions, to landowners, lessees and occupiers who make their land available to the public for various enumerated recreational  activities, including  snowmobiling. As relevant here, the consideration exception provides that immunity does not exist “for injury suffered in any case where permission . . . was granted  for a  consideration, other  than  the  consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state or federal government” (General Obligations Law § 9–103 [2] [b]). It is the plaintiff who has the burden of establishing that the  claimed exception applies and, as the Court of Appeals has instructed, we must strictly construe the exception so as not to defeat the statute’s broad purpose … .  Ferland … v GMO Renewable Resources LLC, et al, 514045, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

City Deemed Immune from Suit—Governmental and Proprietary Functions Explained 

Plaintiff was injured when a Department of Transportation (DOT) worker, who was setting up cones on the roadway in preparation for road repair, allowed plaintiff to ride through the work area on her bicycle.  The plaintiff was injured when she rode over a pothole. The First Department determined the defendant City was immune from suit because the DOT worker was performing a discretionary/governmental, not a proprietary function, when he allowed the plaintiff to ride through.  The decision includes detailed discussion of discretionary/governmental versus proprietary functions.  Wittorf v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02014, 8358, 103233/06, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

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