Eckert v. State

3 A.D.3d 470, 771 N.Y.S.2d 132
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 12, 2004
DocketClaim No. 100921
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 470 (Eckert v. State) 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
Eckert v. State, 3 A.D.3d 470, 771 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from (1) a decision of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated February 6, 2003, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated February 25, 2003, which, after a trial on the issue of liability, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The claimants allege, among other things, that the State of New York was negligent in having its police officers fail to replace extinguished road flares at the scene of an accident, and failed to take other reasonable measures to warn drivers of the accident. However, traffic regulation, including the placement of road flares, “is a classic example of a governmental function undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers” (Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp., 90 NY2d 966, 968 [1997]; see Respass v City of New York, 288 AD2d 286 [2001]; Gonzalez v County of Suffolk, 228 AD2d 411 [1996]).

It is well settled that a municipality cannot be held liable for negligence in the performance of a governmental function unless a special relationship exists between the municipality and the injured party (see Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp., supra at 967; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]). Here, [471]*471the injured, claimant failed to establish the existence of a special relationship between himself and the State. Accordingly, the claim was properly dismissed. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Barrack v. Village of Piermont
2026 NY Slip Op 00232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Barnes v. State of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 8564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Murchinson v. State
97 A.D.3d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Denis v. Town of Haverstraw
852 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D. New York, 2012)
Hughes-Berg v. Mueller
50 A.D.3d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Lynch v. State
37 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Santoro v. City of New York
17 A.D.3d 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Schleider v. State
5 A.D.3d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 A.D.3d 470, 771 N.Y.S.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckert-v-state-nyappdiv-2004.