Ranger v. County of Suffolk

41 A.D.3d 813, 839 N.Y.S.2d 168

This text of 41 A.D.3d 813 (Ranger v. County of Suffolk) 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
Ranger v. County of Suffolk, 41 A.D.3d 813, 839 N.Y.S.2d 168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Department of Social Services appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 7, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the plaintiff.

A municipality is entitled to immunity from liability for the discretionary actions performed by its employees except when a “special relationship” exists between the plaintiff and the municipality (see Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 193 [2004]; see also Laratro v City of New York, 8 NY3d 79, 82-83 [2006]; Kovit v Estate of Hallums, 4 NY3d 499, 507, 508 [2005]; Cuffy v City [814]*814of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]). The elements of this “special relationship” are: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking (see Cuffy v City of New York, supra at 260).

Here, the appellants’ submissions reveal that a triable issue of fact exists, inter alia, as to whether there was a “special relationship” between the plaintiff and the appellants.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are improperly raised for the first time on appeal or need not be reached in light of our determination. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Laratro v. City of New York
861 N.E.2d 95 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
Pelaez v. Seide
810 N.E.2d 393 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
Kovit v. Estate of Hallums
829 N.E.2d 1188 (New York Court of Appeals, 2005)
Cuffy v. City of New York
505 N.E.2d 937 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 A.D.3d 813, 839 N.Y.S.2d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ranger-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-2007.