From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Metcalfe v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1996
225 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 25, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the Town of Islip's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted in its entirety.

The plaintiff owns property in the defendant Town of Islip. In or about 1988, the owner of an abutting parcel, the defendant Richard Ludwig, commenced construction of a home on his property. Both during and after the construction was completed, the plaintiff experienced flooding on her property. Alleging that the flooding was caused by the construction on Ludwig's property, the plaintiff commenced this action against the Town and others. The plaintiff argued that the Town was liable for damages arising from the flooding because the Town, inter alia, failed to enforce certain of its building code provisions when issuing permits for and approving the construction by Ludwig. However, it is well settled that, "[a]bsent a special relationship creating a municipal duty to exercise care for the benefit of a particular class of individuals, no liability may be imposed upon a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation" ( Sanchez v Village of Liberty, 42 N.Y.2d 876, 877-878; see generally, Annotation, Municipal Liability for Negligent Performance of Building Inspector's Duties, 24 ALR 5th 200; Borth, Municipal Tort Liability for Erroneous Issuance of Building Permits — A National Survey, 58 Wn. L Rev 537 [1983]; see also, Cuffy v City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255; O'Connor v City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 184). Here, the plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact that a special relationship was created by either the alleged violations of the code provisions or any acts or representations by the Town ( see, e.g., Bihn v Munch, 200 A.D.2d 700; Miller v Morania Oil, 194 A.D.2d 770; Appleby v Webb, 186 A.D.2d 1078). Accordingly, the Town's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Metcalfe v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1996
225 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Metcalfe v. Town of Islip

Case Details

Full title:LINDA METCALFE, Respondent, v. TOWN OF ISLIP, Appellant, and COUNTY OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 25, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 150

Citing Cases

Pearlman v. Simons [2d Dept 2000

`of a different kind from that suffered by other persons exercising the same public right'" (Burns Jackson…

Pearlman v. Simons

`of a different kind from that suffered by other persons exercising the same public right'" (Burns Jackson…