From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lasker v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1993
194 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 14, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Gary Lasker, a physical education teacher at Lafayette High School, was injured when an unidentified individual threw a desk-chair unit from a stairwell platform, which struck him as he was ascending the steps.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced the instant action, alleging in the complaint and bill of particulars that the defendants City of New York and New York City Board of Education were negligent in that they, inter alia, failed to employ proper security guards, failed to supervise the premises, failed to protect the plaintiff Gary Lasker's safety, allowed and permitted students upon the stairwell who were belligerent, and failed to warn the plaintiff of the students' violent propensities.

At his deposition, the plaintiff Gary Lasker further alleged that an outside entrance door had been in disrepair for some time prior to the accident, although neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars made mention of this factual assertion as a ground supporting the plaintiffs' allegations of negligence.

The Supreme Court subsequently granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

It is well settled that the "provision of security against physical attacks by third parties * * * is a governmental function * * * and that no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent special duty of protection" (Bonner v City of New York, 73 N.Y.2d 930, 932; Vitale v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 861; Porterfield v. City of New York, 175 A.D.2d 787; Feder v. Board of Educ., 147 A.D.2d 526; Bisignano v. City of New York, 136 A.D.2d 671; Marilyn S. v. City of New York, 134 A.D.2d 583, affd 73 N.Y.2d 910; Berler v. City of New York, 152 Misc.2d 133, 134). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, we conclude that the gravamen of their claim is that the school failed to provide proper security against physical attacks by third parties. However, there is no claim made that the defendants owed the injured plaintiff any such special duty of protection. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' complaint was properly dismissed. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lasker v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1993
194 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Lasker v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:GARY LASKER et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 14, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 89

Citing Cases

Thomas v. City of New York

In the case before us, there is no evidence that the defendants owed a special duty of protection to the…

Ruchalski v. Schenectady County Community College

The crux of plaintiff's claim, as evidenced by the pleadings and her affidavits and examination before trial…