Thomas v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. City of New York

180 A.D.2d 588

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 588 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. City of New York, 180 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J., and a jury), entered January 16, 1990, in favor of the infant plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for future pain and suffering, and apportioning liability 90% against defendant G.R.R. Realty Corp. and 10% against defendant City of New York, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the unusual circumstances of this case, we find that a special relationship existed between the infant plaintiff and defendant City imposing a duty on the City to exercise care for plaintiff’s particular benefit (see, Smullen v City of New York, 28 NY2d 66). The conduct of the various City agencies sufficed to establish each of the requisite elements of a special relationship, including the "key element” of "direct contact between agents of the municipality and the injured party.” (Sorichetti v City of New York, 65 NY2d 461, 469.)

The evidence adduced at trial was also sufficient to support the award of damages and the finding that defendant City’s conduct was, to the extent apportioned, a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J., and a jury), entered January 16, 1990, in favor of the infant plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for future pain and suffering, and apportioning liability 90% against defendant G.R.R. Realty Corp. and 10% against defendant City of New York, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the unusual circumstances of this case, we find that a special relationship existed between the infant plaintiff and defendant City imposing a duty on the City to exercise care for plaintiff’s particular benefit (see, Smullen v City of New York, 28 NY2d 66). The conduct of the various City agencies sufficed to establish each of the requisite elements of a special relationship, including the "key element” of "direct contact between agents of the municipality and the injured party.” (Sorichetti v City of New York, 65 NY2d 461, 469.)

The evidence adduced at trial was also sufficient to support the award of damages and the finding that defendant City’s conduct was, to the extent apportioned, a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack