Sorrentino v. Mayerson
| Decision Date | 15 March 2011 |
| Citation | 82 A.D.3d 955,918 N.Y.S.2d 579 |
| Parties | Andrea SORRENTINO, Jr., et al., appellants, v. David MAYERSON, defendant, County of Suffolk, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Christopher S. Olson, Huntington, N.Y., for appellants.
Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (James A. Squicciarini of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated December 3, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendants County of Suffolkand Annette Rios-Hoyt for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Andrea Sorrentino, Jr. (hereinafter the plaintiff), a tow truck operator, allegedly was injured while attempting to remove a disabled vehicle following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff asserted that he backed his tow truck into a driveway where the disabled vehicle and the vehicle of the defendant police officer, Annette Rios-Hoyt, had been parked. As the plaintiff exited his truck and stood next to it, another car driven by the defendant David Mayerson allegedly collided with the front of the plaintiff's truck, causing the truck to strike the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs alleged that the County of Suffolk and Rios-Hoyt (hereinafter together the municipal defendants) failed to properly secure the accident scene by placing road flares or cones in the roadway. The municipal defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, arguing that they could not be held liable for performing a governmental function such as securing an accident scene in the absence of a special duty. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
A municipality will not be held liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function in the absence of a special relationship between the injured party and the municipality ( see McLean v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.3d 194, 878 N.Y.S.2d 238, 905 N.E.2d 1167; Balsam v. Delma Eng'g Corp., 90 N.Y.2d 966, 665 N.Y.S.2d 613, 688 N.E.2d 487; Respass v. City of New York, 288 A.D.2d 286, 733 N.Y.S.2d 210; Gonzalez v. County of Suffolk, 228 A.D.2d 411, 643 N.Y.S.2d 651). Here, the municipal defendants' actions in securing the accident site constituted a governmental function and, therefore, they cannot be held liable absent the existence of a special relationship ( see Balsam v. Delma Eng'g Corp., 90 N.Y.2d 966, 665 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denis v. Town of Haverstraw
...Mem. 2), Plaintiff has provided no analysis and has cited no case law to support that conclusory assertion. 8. In Sorrentino v. Mayerson, 82 A.D.3d 955, 918 N.Y.S.2d 579 (2011), the plaintiff was injured when police officers failed to properly secure an accident scene by putting flares or c......
-
In re Dominique Beyonce R.
...Porscha Monique J., 21 A.D.3d 415, 799 N.Y.S.2d 780). The Family Court properly denied the mother's motion to vacate her default ( see 918 N.Y.S.2d 579Matter of Capri Alexis R., 48 A.D.3d 821, 852 N.Y.S.2d 386; Matter of Nicholas S., 46 A.D.3d 830, 848 N.Y.S.2d 311; Matter of Princess M., 5......
-
Rozell v. Milby
...N.Y.S.2d 587, 960 N.E.2d 356;Balsam v. Delma Eng'g Corp., 90 N.Y.2d 966, 968, 665 N.Y.S.2d 613, 688 N.E.2d 487;Sorrentino v. Mayerson, 82 A.D.3d 955, 955–956, 918 N.Y.S.2d 579). Contrary to the contentions of the plaintiff and the defendant Cheryl Milby, a plaintiff is required to allege th......