Burns v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burns v. County of Nassau

60 A.D.2d 900, 401 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9948

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 900 (Burns v. County of Nassau) 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

Burns v. County of Nassau, 60 A.D.2d 900, 401 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 26, 1976, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the County of Nassau negligently failed to provide sufficient traffic controls and police protection to the infant plaintiff at the street corner where he was injured by a motor vehicle. Plaintiffs claim that increased vigilance on the part of the county was reasonably required in order to safely control the increased traffic flow on local streets resulting from a rise in the toll on the Southern State Parkway. However, it is well settled that the failure to provide special police and fire protection is not actionable by persons injured as a result of that failure (Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 NY2d 134; Evers v Westerberg, 38 AD2d 751, affd 32 NY2d 684). The County of Nassau had no special duty to provide additional traffic assistance at this intersection; nor did it voluntarily assume that duty. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no actionable claim against the county (see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554; Florence v Goldberg, 48 AD2d 917). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 26, 1976, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the County of Nassau negligently failed to provide sufficient traffic controls and police protection to the infant plaintiff at the street corner where he was injured by a motor vehicle. Plaintiffs claim that increased vigilance on the part of the county was reasonably required in order to safely control the increased traffic flow on local streets resulting from a rise in the toll on the Southern State Parkway. However, it is well settled that the failure to provide special police and fire protection is not actionable by persons injured as a result of that failure (Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 NY2d 134; Evers v Westerberg, 38 AD2d 751, affd 32 NY2d 684). The County of Nassau had no special duty to provide additional traffic assistance at this intersection; nor did it voluntarily assume that duty. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no actionable claim against the county (see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554; Florence v Goldberg, 48 AD2d 917). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 900, 401 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack