You are here: / Immunity
, ,

RARE CASE IN WHICH A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY MAY RENDER THE CITY LIABLE FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL; BECAUSE THE DELAY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY MAY NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the existence of a special relationship with the city and dismissal based on the doctrine of governmental function immunity was not appropriate. Plaintiff called 911 and was told the ambulance was on its way. Plaintiff had other options for assistance but relied on the 911 operator’s statement. Apparently the ambulance response was delayed. Absent a special relationship a municipality may not be held liable for breach of a duty owed to the general public. Governmental immunity generally protects discretionary actions. Here the delayed response may not have been due to the deliberate exercise of discretion and therefore may not be protected by the immunity doctrine:

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to establish a special relationship between the City and the decedent that brings her claim within the exception to the general rule that a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty that it owes to the general public — such as the duty to provide ambulance service … . The allegation that the 911 operator told plaintiff that “we are on our way” is sufficient to establish defendants’ assumption of an affirmative duty to act on the decedent’s behalf … . Plaintiff sufficiently alleged justifiable reliance on the call operator’s statement through an affidavit submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion in which she listed several additional actions she would have taken to secure help but for the operator’s assurance … .

Dismissal is also not appropriate at this stage pursuant to the doctrine of governmental function immunity, which shields public entities from liability for “discretionary” actions taken during the performance of “governmental functions” … . It is undisputed that the provision of emergency care by FDNY EMTs constitutes a governmental function … . It is also clear that determinations of whether and when to dispatch an ambulance, the type of ambulance to dispatch and from where, and the route the ambulance should take are discretionary in nature … . However, it is not clear that the delay at issue here was due to an affirmative exercise of this discretion, rather than an unintentional failure to timely dispatch an ambulance … . Xenias v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00647, First Dept 2-4-21

 

, , ,

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN STEMMING FROM THE TOWN JUSTICE’S ISSUANCE OF AN ARREST WARRANT FOR PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the malicious prosecution cause of action against the town should have been dismissed. Plaintiff daughter filed a report accusing her mother of withdrawing money from the daughter’s account without permission. An arrest warrant was issued. Plaintiff thereafter produced a power of attorney allowing her to withdraw money from her daughter’s account and the larceny charge against plaintiff was dropped. Plaintiff then brought a malicious prosecution action against the town and the village:

Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a judge is immune from civil liability for any acts that he or she performs in the exercise of his or her judicial function … .

Defendants correctly observe that plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against the Town is premised solely upon the Town Justice signing the warrant authorizing plaintiff’s arrest. The record indisputably establishes that the Town Justice signed the arrest warrant in the exercise of his judicial function. Consequently, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies and Supreme Court should have dismissed the malicious prosecution claim against the Town on that basis … . Gagnon v Village of Cooperstown, N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 07256, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

, , ,

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; AN INDICTMENT RAISES ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHICH CAN BE REBUTTED; A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED ONLY TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS AN INVESTIGATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s malicious prosecution cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was arrested and indicted for sex trafficking, held in jail for 10 months, and then the charges were dropped. The court noted that the indictment raised only a presumption of probable cause which can be rebutted. The plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the prosecution was motivated by malice. A prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting as an investigator:

“The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” … . Although a grand jury indictment raises a presumption of probable cause, this presumption may be rebutted … . “[E]ven if the jury at a trial could, or likely would, decline to draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff on issues of probable cause and malice, the court on a summary judgment motion must indulge all available inferences of the absence of probable cause and the existence of malice” … . …

“[A] prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of his or her official duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the People’s case, but a prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting in an investigatory capacity” … . Crooks v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 07161, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, , , , ,

UNDER THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI ANALYSIS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE 42 USC 1983, FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment on the 42 USC 1983, false arrest, assault and battery causes of action should not have been granted. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli analysis, there were questions of fact about the existence of probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest:

“The existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to a cause of action alleging false arrest, including a cause of action asserted pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 to recover damages for the deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law that is the federal-law equivalent of a state common-law false arrest cause of action” … . “However, [w]hen an arrest is made without a warrant, as here, a presumption arises that it was unlawful, and the burden of proving justification is cast upon the defendant” … . Where the arrest was made without a prior judicial determination of probable cause, and where the arresting officer’s alleged probable cause is based on hearsay, probable cause is properly evaluated under the Aguilar-Spinelli test … . Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, where, as here, probable cause is predicated upon the hearsay statement of an informant, the proponent of the hearsay statement “must demonstrate that the informant is reliable and that the informant had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge” … . Here the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to the existence of probable cause for the arrest. The existence of triable issues of fact with respect to whether the police evaluations at issue, such as the evaluation of probable cause to arrest and requisite suspicion to perform a strip search, were objectively reasonable precludes an award of summary judgment … on the ground of qualified immunity … .

“To sustain a cause of action to recover damages for assault, there must be proof of physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . “To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature” … . A claim predicated on assault and battery may be based upon contact during an unlawful arrest … . Here, the defendants’ failure to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s arrest was lawful precluded an award of summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action, which alleged assault and battery … . Cayruth v City of Mount Vernon, 2020 NY Slip Op 07027, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

, , , ,

MUNICIPALITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY IN THIS WATER- DAMAGE LAWSUIT STEMMING FROM EXTINGUISHING A FIRE; NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ALSO PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the negligence, nuisance and trespass action against the municipalities and the municipal fire departments were properly dismissed. A fire in defendant paper mill was probably the result of arson. In the course of putting out the fire, the fire department returned water to a canal using a deck gun which shot a stream of water over plaintiff’s building. Apparently water seeped into the building causing damage. The negligence cause of action was precluded by governmental immunity, the nuisance action was precluded by the lack of evidence of intent, and firefighters doing their jobs are not deemed trespassers. With regard to governmental immunity, the court wrote:

To address the claims against the fire department defendants first, even accepting that questions of fact exist as to whether they had a special relationship with plaintiff that would give rise to a claim for negligence … , they are nevertheless protected by the governmental immunity doctrine, which “shield[s] public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions” … . Under the doctrine, “[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 plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general” … . There is no question that fire protection, and obtaining the water necessary to provide it, is a purely governmental function … . The key issue is therefore whether the fire department defendants’ purportedly negligent acts — choosing to use the deck gun and aim it in a direction that caused a rain to fall around the powerhouse — were discretionary in that they arose from “the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stevens & Thompson Paper Co. Inc. v Middle Falls Fire Dept., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06996, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, THE DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS WERE DISCRETIONARY AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, AND THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; PLAINTIFF’S WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION BASED UPON THE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FROM ABUSE BY FAMILY MEMBERS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s and the sheriff’s motions for summary judgment in this wrongful death case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendants were aware that plaintiff’s decedent was being abused by her half brother and mother and did not act to protect her. The Fourth Department held: (1) there was no special relationship between the county and plaintiff; (2) governmental immunity protected the defendants because their actions involved the exercise of discretion; (3) there is no cause of action in New York for negligent investigation or prosecution:

“[A]t the heart of most of these ‘special duty’ cases is the unfairness that the courts have perceived in precluding recovery when a municipality’s voluntary undertaking has lulled the injured party into a false sense of security and has thereby induced him [or her] either to relax his [or her] own vigilance or to forego other available avenues of protection” … . Here, [plaintiff’s decedent’s brother] did not in fact relax his own vigilance inasmuch as he made two follow-up calls to the … caseworker asking her to reopen the investigation, and he was not induced to forego other avenues of relief … . * * *

Defendants established that the actions of the … caseworkers “resulted from discretionary decision-making” … . While the caseworkers may have been negligent, they were exercising their discretion throughout the investigations … . * * *

… ‘[A] claim for negligent training in investigative procedures [against the Sheriff] is akin to a claim for negligent investigation or prosecution, which is not actionable in New York’ ” … . Further, inasmuch as the allegations of negligent hiring, training, and supervision against the Sheriff all involved conduct requiring the exercise of the Sheriff’s discretion and judgment, the Sheriff established his entitlement to the governmental function immunity defense … . Maldovan v County of Erie, 2020 NY Slip Op 06595, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT EFFORT TO LOCATE THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT IN THIS RIGHT-OF-SEPULCHER CASE; THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR, HOWEVER, ENJOYED GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact whether the hospital defendants made reasonable and sufficient efforts to locate the decedent’s next of kin in this right-of-sepulcher case alleging defendants interfered with plaintiffs right to immediate possession of decedent’s body. After the hospital defendants failed to locate the next of kin, the investigation was turned over to the County Public Administrator (PA). After the PA failed to locate the next of kin the decedent was buried. After plaintiffs learned of decedent’s death, the body was exhumed and a memorial service was held at the PA’s expense. The suit against the County PA was properly dismissed because the PA enjoyed governmental function immunity and no special duty was owed plaintiffs:

The common-law right of sepulcher “affords the decedent’s next of kin an absolute right to immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial . . . , and damages may be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body” … . “To establish a cause of action for interference with the right of sepulcher, [a] plaintiff must establish that: (1) plaintiff is the decedent’s next of kin; (2) plaintiff had a right to possession of the remains; (3) defendant interfered with plaintiff’s right to immediate possession of the decedent’s body; (4) the interference was unauthorized; (5) plaintiff was aware of the interference; and (6) the interference caused plaintiff mental anguish” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs identified certain records of the hospital defendants, which indicated that decedent had resided, on some occasions, at a local homeless shelter. Those documents were available to the hospital defendants at the time they conducted their search for decedent’s next of kin, and there is no dispute that the hospital defendants did not attempt to contact that homeless shelter during their search.

Plaintiffs also submitted deposition testimony from a person employed by the homeless shelter, who testified that decedent was a frequent resident there and that she knew members of decedent’s family and could have contacted them if she had been notified of decedent’s death. Green v Iacovangelo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03363, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , ,

CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM THE POLICE-KILLING OF AN 18-YEAR-OLD BOY AFTER HIS MOTHER CALLED 911 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the City defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this negligence, wrongful death and civil-rights-violation action should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ decedent, 18 years old, was shot and killed by police after his mother called 911. The Second Department noted that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the cause of action based upon defendants’ alleged failure to follow the Patrol Guide for the apprehension of barricaded and emotionally disturbed persons because the relevant actions were discretionary and thus entitled to governmental immunity:

… [A] municipal defendant cannot be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee police officers where it establishes that the alleged negligent acts involved the exercise of discretionary authority … . 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” … . …

… [T]he defendants submitted the deposition testimony of each of the defendant officers who fired at the decedent, as well as the deposition testimony of a nonparty civilian who observed the incident. … [T]he testimonies of these witnesses demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether … the decedent posed a threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to the defendant officers or others sufficient to justify the officers’ use of deadly physical force against the decedent … . …  [T]he City may not rely on the defense of governmental immunity because the defendant officers’ actions, if negligent, would be in violation of the Patrol Guide’s prohibition against the use of deadly physical force, and therefore, not discretionary … . …

… [Re: 42 USC 1983] the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant officers’ use of deadly physical force against the decedent was objectively reasonable under the circumstances … . The defendants further failed to establish, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether a reasonable officer, facing the same situation, could have believed that deadly physical force was necessary to protect himself or herself or others from death or serious physical injury, and that the defendant officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity … . Owens v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, ,

MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE THE PARENTS FOR CONTRIBUTION ON A THEORY OF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the third-party complaint brought by the defendant manufacturer and seller of a humidifier against the parents of the injured child, alleging negligent supervision of the child, should have been dismissed:

In March 2014, the then-10-month-old infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when she knocked over a humidifier and hot water spilled onto her foot. The infant’s father had placed the humidifier on the living room floor before leaving the apartment with the infant’s five-year-old sibling. The infant’s mother was in the living room when the accident occurred. In August 2014, this action to recover damages for the infant’s injuries was commenced against the defendants, which allegedly manufactured and sold the humidifier. In December 2015, the defendants commenced a third-party action against the parents for contribution. …

There is no legally cognizable cause of action to recover damages for injuries suffered by a minor child against his or her parent for negligent supervision … . Additionally, where a secondary right of contribution is dependent upon “the parent’s alleged failure to perform a duty owing to the plaintiff child, the absence of the primary cause of action defeats the . . . third-party complaint” … . Although there is an exception when the parent’s conduct implicates a duty owed to the public at large … , the acts complained of in the third-party complaint were encompassed within the intrafamily immunity for negligent supervision … . Martinez v Kaz USA, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02776, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

, , , , , ,

WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS IN A COMPLAINT IS NOT CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; HERE THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEARN AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THEIR CASE IN DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY WAS NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant school’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. Plaintiffs alleged the school retaliated against them after they complained about race-related issues by making a false child neglect report to Child Protective Services (CPS). The school argued the plaintiffs will not be able to learn the identity of the person who reported the alleged neglect because of the immunity provided by the Social Services Law. The 2nd Department explained that the immunity question is not relevant to whether the complaint states causes of action:

… [P]laintiffs assert causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, violations of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and negligent hiring, training and supervision … .

Defendants moved to dismiss all of these causes of action on the basis that plaintiffs would be unable to prove any of these claims because they did not know the identity of the CPS reporter and would be unable to learn it in discovery. …

… [I]n the context of this motion to dismiss, the Court does not assess the relative merits of the complaint’s allegations against defendant’s contrary assertions or to determine whether or not plaintiffs can produce evidence to support their claims … . Whether plaintiffs “can ultimately establish [their] allegations is not a part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss” … . Thus, regardless of whether plaintiffs will be able to obtain disclosure concerning the identity of the CPS reporter (Social Services Law § 422[4][A] …), defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to dismissal of the well-pleaded complaint for failure to state a cause of action … . M.H.B. v E.C.F.S., 2019 NY Slip Op 08276, First Dept 11-14-19

 

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