Coleman v. Cnty. of Suffolk

1 Citing case

  1. Boland v. City of New York

    209 A.D.3d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the complaint failed to allege facts establishing that the City assumed a duty to the injured plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally (seeApplewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d at 431, 972 N.Y.S.2d 169, 995 N.E.2d 131 ; Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 262–264, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937 ; Coleman v. County of Suffolk, 192 A.D.3d 857, 859, 140 N.Y.S.3d 780 ). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the City's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.