Benjamin by Benjamin v. City of New York

• Citation: 473 N.E.2d 753,484 N.Y.S.2d 525,64 N.Y.2d 44
• Parties: , 473 N.E.2d 753 James C. BENJAMIN, an Infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Dorothy BENJAMIN, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 18 December 1984
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 525

484 N.Y.S.2d 525

64 N.Y.2d 44, 473 N.E.2d 753

James C. BENJAMIN, an Infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Dorothy BENJAMIN, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 18, 1984.

Ignatius John Melito, Thomas R. Newman and Terry D. Horner, New York City, for appellants.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (John R. Hupper, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

During the afternoon of June 17, 1974, plaintiffs and other children were playing softball on a vacant, City-owned lot between two buildings. One of the other boys obtained a can of lacquer from a nearby van, poured the lacquer into a metal pipe, and then started a fire. As plaintiffs gathered to watch, an explosion occurred and plaintiffs were seriously burned. They commenced this action for damages against the City, alleging that it breached its duty to keep the lot reasonably safe by failing to take adequate precautions to minimize the danger to children posed by rubbish fires which, according to some witnesses, occurred from time to time on the property and were on occasion extinguished by City fire fighters. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs' favor but the Appellate Division unanimously reversed, on the law, and dismissed the complaint, holding that the evidence established neither a duty nor proximate cause.

A municipality's duty to maintain its parks in reasonably safe condition includes not only physical care of the property but also prevention of ultrahazardous and criminal activity of which it has knowledge (Rhabb v. New York City Housing Auth., 41 N.Y.2d 200, 202, 391 N.Y.S.2d 540, 359 N.E.2d 1335). Accordingly, we have recognized a duty to prevent the foreseeable continuation of activity such as the discharge of fireworks (Caldwell v. Village of Is. Park, 304 N.Y. 268, 275, 107 N.E.2d 441; see, also, Nicholson v. Board of Educ., 36 N.Y.2d 798, 369 N.Y.S.2d 703, 330 N.E.2d 651). Even if we were to assume that the vacant lot involved here can be likened to a park in view of its use by children for play, the condition complained of cannot be analogized to the ultrahazardous, illegal activity necessary for imposition of a duty on a municipality. Occasional rubbish fires on a vacant lot, the scope of which is readily observable even to school-age children, are not of such a nature as to require the City to provide supervision or construct a locked fence, as suggested by plaintiffs. Finding no duty, we do not reach the issue of causation.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, 99 A.D.2d 995, 473 N.Y.S.2d 450 (1984), should be affirmed, with costs.

COOKE, Chief Judge (dissenting).

Because I cannot agree that, as a matter of law, the City met its duty to keep the lot in a reasonably safe condition, I respectfully dissent.

The pivotal issue before this court is whether the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the verdict in favor of plaintiffs was not supported by sufficient evidence (see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 497, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145). On this review, then, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs to determine if there was any rational basis upon which the jury could have found liability (see id., at p. 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145; Rhabb v. New York City Housing Auth., 41 N.Y.2d 200, 202, 391 N.Y.S.2d 540, 359 N.E.2d 1335).

There is evidence in the record that would support the following: (1) plaintiff was injured on a vacant lot owned by the City, which was used as a park or playground for neighborhood children; (2) although children may not have been expressly invited to play there, the jury could have found an implied invitation from evidence that defendant was aware that children often played there and failed to take measures to exclude them from the area (see Nicholson v. Board of Educ., 36 N.Y.2d 798, 799-800, 369 N.Y.S.2d 703, 330 N.E.2d 651); (3) the lot had been cleared by a neighborhood association with the help of equipment from the City Sanitation Department; (4) defendant permitted a sign on its property describing the lot as "the Future Home of a Park for the Community Children. Keep it Clean--Curb Dogs"; (5) when garbage accumulated on the lot, it was removed by Sanitation Department workers upon the request of neighborhood residents; (6) several witnesses indicated that rubbish fires occurred on the lot as frequently as every two weeks or more and that the City Fire Department had extinguished these fires many times; and (7) in addition, patrolling police officers had been observed warning youths to put such fires out and to clear away from the area.

Defendant does not seriously contest that it knew that children played on the lot. Rather, it stresses that the property was maintained in a reasonably safe condition in view of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). Defendant claims that the probability of serious injury was extremely low, that the financial burden of supervising the lot would have been excessive and that fencing in the area would have been ineffective. Defendant admits its failure to exclude playing...