SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

McLean v City of New York 12 NY3d 194 (2009)

http://courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_02449.htm

Plaintiff, whose infant daughter was injured while being cared for at a city-registered family day care home, failed to state a cause of action against the Defendant City of New York even though the City had renewed the home’s registration despite substantiated complaints about the home and had placed the home on a list of registered day care providers.

An agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function in the absence of a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public. The Plaintiff failed to show a special relationship giving rise to a special duty, and therefore cannot recover against the City.

Lyles v State of New York 3 NY3d 396 (2004)

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_08781.htm

“This claim against the State of New York to recover damages for alleged violations of state and federal constitutional rights arose out of an early morning State Police traffic stop on March 27, 1999. Claimant Artemus Lyles was driving home from Westchester [*2]County in a 1986 Cadillac that he had recently purchased at an auction. As he traveled on Interstate 287, two New York State Troopers pulled him over explaining that his vehicle’s exhaust pipe was emitting fumes. During the stop, the State Troopers issued claimant a ticket for the offense and conducted a consent search of his person. One of the troopers searched his car without his consent. Nothing remarkable was discovered and, after detaining claimant for an hour and 20 minutes, the State Troopers permitted him to drive away.”

“Shortly thereafter, the same officers stopped claimant a second time for driving with an obstructed windshield. They detained him for another hour during which a State Police sergeant arrived at the scene. According to claimant, he was handcuffed and made to open the car trunk for inspection. A search of its contents revealed only lawful items, which were allegedly thrown onto the road before being returned to the trunk. No ticket was issued and claimant was eventually allowed to leave.”

The Court of Claims dismissed the suit on the ground that constitutional claims cannot be pursued in the Court of Claims if the claimant can pursue common law tort claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division.

“We need not determine whether the constitutional torts at issue should be categorized as negligent, unintentional or intentional torts for purposes of the court’s jurisdiction over this matter. As the claim is untimely under either Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) or (3-b), it was properly dismissed. In light of our conclusion, the merits of claimant’s constitutional tort claims are not properly before us. Thus, we do not address the issue of whether a constitutional tort action may be maintained where alternative common-law tort remedies exist.”

Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo 2016 NY Slip Op 07817

Justia Opinion Summary https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2016/168.html (February 22, 2019)

Claimant, a former police officer employed by the City of Buffalo, alleged that exposure to asbestos occurred during his employment, later leading to his diagnosis of mesothelioma. Claimant and his wife commenced this proceeding seeking permission to serve a late notice of claim on the City. The City argued, in opposition, that leave should be denied because N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 207-c provides the exclusive remedy for the alleged work-related remedies. The Appellate Division denied the application. At issue on appeal was whether a police officer who is entitled to receive benefits under section 207-c for a duty-related injury is barred from bringing a claim against his or her employer under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 205-e. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that section 205-e does not bar a lawsuit by a police officer who suffers a line-of-duty injury caused by the employer’s statutory or regulatory violations when that police officer is employed by a municipality that has elected not to provide coverage pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Turturro v City of New York 2016 NY Slip Op 08579

Justia Opinion Summary https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2016/196.html (February 22, 2019)

Anthony Turturro was attempting to cross Gerritsen Avenue in Brooklyn on his bicycle when he was struck by a vehicle driven by Louis Pascarella. A police investigation determined that Pascarella was traveling at a speed of at least fifty-four miles per hour before the collision. Plaintiffs bought this negligence action against, inter alia, the City of New York and Pascarella. The jury returned a verdict finding that Anthony, Pascarella, and the City were negligent. The jury apportioned ten percent of the liability to Anthony, fifty percent to Pascarella, and forty percent to the City. The City moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that it was entitled to qualified immunity and that it was acting in a governmental capacity when it failed to conduct an adequate study of whether traffic calming measures should be implemented after it received numerous complaints of speeding on Gerritsen Avenue. Supreme Court denied the City’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the City was acting in a proprietary capacity regarding the safety of Gerritsen Avenue; and (2) there was a rational process by which the jury could have concluded that the City’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and that the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply.