Opinion
August 21, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts.
Ordered that the order of the Appellate Term is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the allegations of the complaint, as amplified in the bill of particulars, do not stem from the defendants' failure to fulfill their proprietary duties, but rather derive from the defendants' exercise of their governmental function (see, Marilyn S. v. City of New York, 134 A.D.2d 583, affd 73 N.Y.2d 910; Weinstein v. Board of Educ., 127 A.D.2d 655; Pugliese v. City of New York, 115 A.D.2d 465). Accordingly, the Appellate Term properly affirmed the dismissal of the complaint since the plaintiff failed to allege the existence of a special duty upon which municipal liability can be predicated (see also, Bisagnano v. City of New York, 136 A.D.2d 671; Salmond v. Board of Educ., 131 A.D.2d 829; Brown v. City of New York, 130 A.D.2d 701; Glick v. City of New York, 53 A.D.2d 528, affd 42 N.Y.2d 831). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.