Brown v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. City of New York

22 A.D.3d 241, 802 N.Y.S.2d 128

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 241 (Brown v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. City of New York, 22 A.D.3d 241, 802 N.Y.S.2d 128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2004, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants-respondents (the municipal defendants) to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Municipalities are generally immune from tort liability when their employees perform discretionary acts involving the exercise of reasoned judgment, except in those cases where plaintiffs establish that they had a “special relationship” with the municipality giving rise to a duty enforceable in tort (see Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186 [2004]; Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 99 [2000]; Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34 [1983]). Inasmuch as the complained-of conduct by municipal employees was discretionary and there is no allegation justifying an inference that there was a “special relationship” between plaintiff and the City, the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for [242]*242relief as against the municipal defendants. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2004, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants-respondents (the municipal defendants) to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Municipalities are generally immune from tort liability when their employees perform discretionary acts involving the exercise of reasoned judgment, except in those cases where plaintiffs establish that they had a “special relationship” with the municipality giving rise to a duty enforceable in tort (see Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186 [2004]; Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 99 [2000]; Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34 [1983]). Inasmuch as the complained-of conduct by municipal employees was discretionary and there is no allegation justifying an inference that there was a “special relationship” between plaintiff and the City, the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for [242]*242relief as against the municipal defendants. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 241, 802 N.Y.S.2d 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack