Tuthill v. City of Rochester
| Decision Date | 28 May 1970 |
| Citation | 27 N.Y.2d 558,313 N.Y.S.2d 127 |
| Parties | , 261 N.E.2d 267 Richard Marsden TUTHILL et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 32 A.D.2d 873, 301 N.Y.S.2d 648.
Residents of fire district, which had contracted with city for relaying calls for fire assistance to district's fire department, and whose home was destroyed by fire, brought action against city and others to recover for destruction of home, on ground that city and others were guilty of negligence because of alleged failure of city and others to have personnel present to handle distress calls, and on ground that city failed to establish safety regulations for use of relay system.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Monroe County, Marshall E. Livingston, J., 57 Misc.2d 94, 292 N.Y.S.2d 249, denied a motion to dismiss the complaint, and the city and others appealed.
The Appellate Division, 32 A.D.2d 873, 301 N.Y.S.2d 648, reversed the order, and granted motion, and dismissed complaint. The Appellate Division held that contract between city and fire district created no special duty or benefit running to the residents individual and at best was for benefit of general public, and that residents did not show that their benefit under contract was either primary or immediate, and that under such circumstances there was no liability to residents, and that reliance on Section 209--p of General Municipal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 24, dealing with relay of fire and emergency calls to establish a basis for tort responsibility was unavailing, because Section creates neither a new duty nor liability greater than existed under common law.
The residents of the district appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
World Trade Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Lido Knitting Mills, Inc.
......20, 1990. . Page 931 . [154 A.D.2d 100] Hinckley & Silbert, P.C., New York City (Michael B. Sena of counsel; Wickens, Hare, Koches & Cale [Brendan M. Hare and David B. Chaffin] ... the plaintiffs' two causes of action against it sounding in breach of contract (see also, Tuthill v. City of Rochester, 32 A.D.2d 873, 301 N.Y.S.2d 648, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 558, 313 N.Y.S.2d 127, 261 ......
-
Florence v. Goldberg
...22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860; Tuthill v. City of Rochester, 32 A.D.2d 873, 301 N.Y.S.2d 648, affd., 27 N.Y.2d 558, 313 N.Y.S.2d 127, 261 N.E.2d 267; Bass v. City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 407, 330 N.Y.S.2d 569, affd., 32 N.Y.2d 894, 346 N.Y.S.2d 814, 300 N.E.2d 154; Evers v.......
-
Office Park Corp. v. Onondaga County
...duty on the part of the County owing to plaintiffs (Tuthill v. City of Rochester, 32 A.D.2d 873, 301 N.Y.S.2d 648, affd, 27 N.Y.2d 558, 313 N.Y.S.2d 127, 261 N.E.2d 267). Plaintiffs, therefore, being unable to demonstrate any special duty that the County has assumed towards them, may not ho......
-
De Long v. Erie County
...(see, e.g., Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 N.Y.2d 175, 448 N.Y.S.2d 141, 433 N.E.2d 124; cf. Tuthill v. City of Rochester, 27 N.Y.2d 558, 313 N.Y.S.2d 127, 261 N.E.2d 267). He is not urging that there should be a police officer on every corner or at every place where a crime is li......