Clarke v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clarke v. City of New York

82 A.D.3d 1143, 920 N.Y.2d 913

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1143 (Clarke 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

Clarke v. City of New York, 82 A.D.3d 1143, 920 N.Y.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1144]*1144The plaintiff Kezieann Clarke commenced this action, individually and on behalf of her infant child, against the City of New York to recover damages for personal injuries the child allegedly sustained as the result of an elevated blood lead level diagnosed after she had resided for one year in a temporary housing shelter. It is undisputed that the City neither owned nor operated the shelter. After issue was joined and discovery completed, the City moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The City contended that because the placement of families in temporary shelters is discretionary conduct, it was immune from liability. Moreover, the City argued that even if its acts were ministerial, there was no special relationship between it and the child subjecting it to liability. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the City’s placement of them in the shelter, as well as the City’s biannual inspections of the premises, created a special relationship. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the City’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

The City made a prima facie showing that the administration of its mandate to provide temporary housing for homeless families is discretionary conduct for which it cannot be held liable (see Reid v City of N.Y., Human Resources Admin., 79 AD3d 839 [2010]; Rodriguez v City of New York, 20 AD3d 327 [2005]; Biro v Department of Social Servs./Human Resources Admin., 1 AD3d 302 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the issue of whether a special relationship existed need not be reached (see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 202 [2009]).

The failure of the claims asserted on behalf of the infant plaintiff is fatal to the plaintiff mother’s derivative claims for loss of consortium and loss of services (see Kaisman v Hernandez, 61 AD3d 565 [2009]; Young v Robertshaw Controls Co., Uni-Line Div., 104 AD2d 84 [1984]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the City’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Balkin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

[1144]*1144The plaintiff Kezieann Clarke commenced this action, individually and on behalf of her infant child, against the City of New York to recover damages for personal injuries the child allegedly sustained as the result of an elevated blood lead level diagnosed after she had resided for one year in a temporary housing shelter. It is undisputed that the City neither owned nor operated the shelter. After issue was joined and discovery completed, the City moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The City contended that because the placement of families in temporary shelters is discretionary conduct, it was immune from liability. Moreover, the City argued that even if its acts were ministerial, there was no special relationship between it and the child subjecting it to liability. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the City’s placement of them in the shelter, as well as the City’s biannual inspections of the premises, created a special relationship. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the City’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

The City made a prima facie showing that the administration of its mandate to provide temporary housing for homeless families is discretionary conduct for which it cannot be held liable (see Reid v City of N.Y., Human Resources Admin., 79 AD3d 839 [2010]; Rodriguez v City of New York, 20 AD3d 327 [2005]; Biro v Department of Social Servs./Human Resources Admin., 1 AD3d 302 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the issue of whether a special relationship existed need not be reached (see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 202 [2009]).

The failure of the claims asserted on behalf of the infant plaintiff is fatal to the plaintiff mother’s derivative claims for loss of consortium and loss of services (see Kaisman v Hernandez, 61 AD3d 565 [2009]; Young v Robertshaw Controls Co., Uni-Line Div., 104 AD2d 84 [1984]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the City’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Balkin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1143, 920 N.Y.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack