# Brown v. City of New York

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · October 6, 2005 · 22 A.D.3d 241

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5688866

## Case

- **Full name:** Jack Brown, and Dennis Mulligan v. City of New York
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** October 6, 2005
- **Citations:** 22 A.D.3d 241; 802 N.Y.S.2d 128
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5688866

## Opinion text

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2004, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants-respondents (the municipal defendants) to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Municipalities are generally immune from tort liability when their employees perform discretionary acts involving the exercise of reasoned judgment, except in those cases where plaintiffs establish that they had a “special relationship” with the municipality giving rise to a duty enforceable in tort (see Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186 [2004]; Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 99 [2000]; Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34 [1983]). Inasmuch as the complained-of conduct by municipal employees was discretionary and there is no allegation justifying an inference that there was a “special relationship” between plaintiff and the City, the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for *242 relief as against the municipal defendants. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5688866. Public record. Not legal advice.