Rolfe v. Village of Falconer

New York Court of Appeals

Rolfe v. Village of Falconer

467 N.E.2d 516, 62 N.Y.2d 884, 478 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4427

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 467 N.E.2d 516 (Rolfe v. Village of Falconer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rolfe v. Village of Falconer, 467 N.E.2d 516, 62 N.Y.2d 884, 478 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4427 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the loss of asbestos shingles that were allegedly stolen by one Kenneth Lanan-ger, who had received from defendant a building permit to remodel and enlarge two porches and an entrance on plaintiff’s building. In obtaining the permit, Lananger represented himself to be the building’s owner.

Plaintiff’s action cannot succeed. The purpose of the building permit is to ensure compliance with the pertinent construction laws. Nothing in the ordinances indicates that they are intended to protect owners against unauthorized modifications to their buildings or, indeed, theft of their building materials. That the application form refers to the applicant as “Owner” does not thereby impose such a duty of protection on the municipality. Consequently, defendant had no obligation to ascertain whether Lananger [886]*886was truly the owner of plaintiff’s building when he applied for the building permit. In the absence of even an implicit assumption by the municipality of a duty to verify ownership, the burden of protecting against unauthorized alterations leading to the theft of materials may not be imposed on the Village.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the loss of asbestos shingles that were allegedly stolen by one Kenneth Lanan-ger, who had received from defendant a building permit to remodel and enlarge two porches and an entrance on plaintiff’s building. In obtaining the permit, Lananger represented himself to be the building’s owner.

Plaintiff’s action cannot succeed. The purpose of the building permit is to ensure compliance with the pertinent construction laws. Nothing in the ordinances indicates that they are intended to protect owners against unauthorized modifications to their buildings or, indeed, theft of their building materials. That the application form refers to the applicant as “Owner” does not thereby impose such a duty of protection on the municipality. Consequently, defendant had no obligation to ascertain whether Lananger [886]*886was truly the owner of plaintiff’s building when he applied for the building permit. In the absence of even an implicit assumption by the municipality of a duty to verify ownership, the burden of protecting against unauthorized alterations leading to the theft of materials may not be imposed on the Village.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 N.E.2d 516, 62 N.Y.2d 884, 478 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rolfe-v-village-of-falconer-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack