Burbach v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burbach v. City of New York

194 A.D.2d 391, 598 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5935

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

DecidedJune 10, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 391 (Burbach 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

Burbach v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 391, 598 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered on or about May 19, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a passenger injured in an accident involving a licensed taxicab driver with numerous violations which might have supported revocation of his license by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission prior to the accident, seeks damages for defendants’ failure to enforce their own rules and regulations. However, absent a special relationship creating a municipal duty to exercise care for the benefit of a particular class of individuals, no liability may be imposed upon a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation (Sanchez v Village of Liberty, 42 NY2d 876; cf., Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260). Ordinances requiring the licensing of the taxicab industry are enacted for the benefit of the general public, not for the benefit of a limited class of [392]*392persons (Bell v Perrino, 112 AD2d 124, 125, affd 67 NY2d 751). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered on or about May 19, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a passenger injured in an accident involving a licensed taxicab driver with numerous violations which might have supported revocation of his license by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission prior to the accident, seeks damages for defendants’ failure to enforce their own rules and regulations. However, absent a special relationship creating a municipal duty to exercise care for the benefit of a particular class of individuals, no liability may be imposed upon a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation (Sanchez v Village of Liberty, 42 NY2d 876; cf., Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260). Ordinances requiring the licensing of the taxicab industry are enacted for the benefit of the general public, not for the benefit of a limited class of [392]*392persons (Bell v Perrino, 112 AD2d 124, 125, affd 67 NY2d 751). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 391, 598 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burbach-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack