Crystal v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crystal v. City of New York

221 A.D.2d 255, 634 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12141

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 255 (Crystal 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

Crystal v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 255, 634 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about June 30, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife who during the relevant time period were police officers. When the husband suffered a line of duty head injury, the wife requested an accommodation in her assigned shifts to care for him, which was denied. Shortly thereafter, the husband suffered a dizzy spell and fell down a staircase, aggravating his injuries. The IAS Court properly refused to evaluate the wisdom of the decision refusing the wife’s request on the ground that it involved only an exercise of discretion by an executive agency that is not judicially reviewable even if the product of negligence (see, Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34, 40; Haddock v City of New York, 75 NY2d 478, 484; Weitzner v New York City Dept, of Social Servs., 212 AD2d 414). In any event, were we to reach the negligence claim on the assumption that defendant did not follow its own procedures in reviewing the request for a change of tour, we would, like the IAS Court, find that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that defendant owed a duty to the husband of enabling the wife to provide him with home care, and that this time and leave decision pertaining to the wife did not proximately cause the husband’s fall down the stairs. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about June 30, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife who during the relevant time period were police officers. When the husband suffered a line of duty head injury, the wife requested an accommodation in her assigned shifts to care for him, which was denied. Shortly thereafter, the husband suffered a dizzy spell and fell down a staircase, aggravating his injuries. The IAS Court properly refused to evaluate the wisdom of the decision refusing the wife’s request on the ground that it involved only an exercise of discretion by an executive agency that is not judicially reviewable even if the product of negligence (see, Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34, 40; Haddock v City of New York, 75 NY2d 478, 484; Weitzner v New York City Dept, of Social Servs., 212 AD2d 414). In any event, were we to reach the negligence claim on the assumption that defendant did not follow its own procedures in reviewing the request for a change of tour, we would, like the IAS Court, find that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that defendant owed a duty to the husband of enabling the wife to provide him with home care, and that this time and leave decision pertaining to the wife did not proximately cause the husband’s fall down the stairs. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 255, 634 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crystal-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack