From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blanc v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1996
223 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The plaintiff is an assistant principal at a high school in Staten Island. On January 21, 1992, following an altercation between two students at the school, three school employed security guards brought one of the students to the plaintiff's office. Soon thereafter the plaintiff went out of his office to disperse other students who had gathered in the hallway. The three security guards remained with the student in the office. While the plaintiff was in the hallway, the student ran out of the office with a bat, swinging it wildly on his way to the cafeteria. The plaintiff followed the student into the cafeteria, and placed himself between the other students and the student with the bat. The student then hit the plaintiff in the face with the bat.

The plaintiff testified that at the time of the incident, there was a security guard stationed at the door to the cafeteria; however, the bat-wielding student had pushed him aside as he entered. He stated that when he was in the cafeteria, he did not see any of the three security guards who initially accompanied the student to his office. The plaintiff also testified that there was another security guard who was assigned to a post outside of his office; however, this guard was not at his post at the time of the incident.

The appellant Board of Education of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board), and its codefendant the City of New York (hereinafter the City), jointly moved for summary judgment. The Board argued that the plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of a special relationship between himself and the Board. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the City, but denied the branch of the motion which was for summary judgment in favor of the Board with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery. We now reverse the denial of summary judgment to the Board.

It is well settled that absent a special relationship between the injured party and the public entity which allegedly committed the negligent act or omission, a governmental agency cannot be held liable for negligent acts committed in the performance of its governmental functions (see, Sorichetti v City of New York, 65 N.Y.2d 461, 468; Vitale v City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 861, 863; Weinstein v Board of Educ., 127 A.D.2d 655, 656). In addition, a special relationship is created only when the governmental agency assumes a duty to act on behalf of the injured party and that party justifiably relies on that assumption of duty to his or her detriment (see, Ennis v Northeast Mines, 200 A.D.2d 553).

In the case at bar, the Board's mere act of hiring security guards did not create a special duty to protect the plaintiff. "Absent indicia that the * * * security guards were hired specifically to protect [the] plaintiff or a limited class of teachers of which [the] plaintiff was a member, security provisions at a public school do not create a special duty upon which governmental liability may be predicated" (Corcoran v Community School Dist. 17, 114 A.D.2d 835; see also, Brady v Board of Educ., 197 A.D.2d 655; Weinstein v Board of Educ., 127 A.D.2d 655, supra). Moreover, it is clear that the plaintiff was not relying upon the assistance of the security guards at the time of the incident. This is evidenced by the fact that the plaintiff pursued the student to the cafeteria on his own, did not specifically request help from any security guard, and did not observe any security guards inside the cafeteria. Accordingly, the plaintiff has not demonstrated a sufficient factual predicate to indicate the existence of a special duty upon which liability against the Board may be based (see, Corcoran v Community School Dist. 17, supra, at 835). Mangano, P.J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blanc v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1996
223 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Blanc v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ALAN BLANC et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and BOARD…

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

Date published: Jan 8, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
636 N.Y.S.2d 112

Citing Cases

Shivers v. City of New York

Thus, there is no issue of fact as to whether his lack of knowledge of Miller's past behavior was a proximate…

Gibson-Purdie v. City of New York

Plaintiff, a teacher at P.S. 42 in Queens County, allegedly sustained injuries as a result of being assaulted…