Opinion
2017–07603 Claim No. 125573
11-06-2019
Nirmal SINGH, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, et al., Respondents.
Kohan Law Group, P.C., Manhasset, N.Y. (Patricia Y. Medina and Joshua Lockamy of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for respondents.
Kohan Law Group, P.C., Manhasset, N.Y. (Patricia Y. Medina and Joshua Lockamy of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for respondents.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Faviola A. Soto, J.), dated February 24, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against the claimant dismissing the claim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The claimant allegedly sustained personal injuries when, after a concert and while at the Queens College campus of the City University of New York, he was assaulted by an individual he knew. He commenced this claim against the State of New York and the City University of New York (hereinafter together the defendants) to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants breached their duty to provide adequate security. After a nonjury trial, the Court of Claims issued a judgment dismissing the claim. The claimant appeals.
We agree with the determination of the Court of Claims dismissing the claim. The defendants' decision regarding the level of security to be provided at the concert was based on the exercise of their reasoned judgment, which entitled them to governmental immunity (see Bonner v. City of New York, 73 N.Y.2d 930, 539 N.Y.S.2d 728, 536 N.E.2d 1147 ; McEnaney v. State of New York, 267 A.D.2d 748, 700 N.Y.S.2d 258 ; Rashed v. State of New York, 232 A.D.2d 394, 648 N.Y.S.2d 131 ; Adams v. State of New York, 210 A.D.2d 273, 620 N.Y.S.2d 80 ). When a municipality acts in a governmental capacity, a plaintiff may not recover without proving that the municipality owed a "special duty" to the injured party ( Valdez v. City of New York, 18 N.Y.3d 69, 75, 936 N.Y.S.2d 587, 960 N.E.2d 356 ). Since there is no evidence of an affirmative undertaking by the defendants to act on behalf of the claimant, nor any evidence of the claimant's reliance upon such an undertaking, the claimant failed to establish that a special duty existed between him and the defendants (see Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.