The duties that can be assumed include prevention of reasonably foreseeable suicides (see Ferrer v. Riverbay Carp., 214 A.D.2d 312, 624 N.Y.S.2d 425 [1st Dept. 1995]). One long-established way to assume such a duty is to promise assistance or protection, causing others to forgo precautions or withhold their own aid (see Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 420, 431, 972 N.Y.S.2d 169, 995 N.E.2d 131 [2013] [EMTs’ assurances in performing CPR and awaiting an ambulance prevented mother from transporting injured child to nearby hospital]; Bardio v. Rego II Borrower, LLC, 213 A.D.3d 626, 629, 184 N.Y.S.3d 74 [2d Dept. 2023] [security guard acceded to the plaintiff’s request to help her find her car]; Xenias v. City of New York, 191 A.D.3d 453, 453–454, 142 N.Y.S.3d 148 [1st Dept. 2021] [911 operator assured the plaintiff "we are on our way," preventing the plaintiff from taking additional actions to secure help]; Pascucci v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 305 A.D.2d 103, 105, 758 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2003] [secretary acknowledged the plaintiff’s request for assistance, implicitly promising to act on the plaintiff’s behalf]; Bloom v. City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 594, 507 N.Y.S.2d 18 [2d Dept. 1986] [security guard accompanied teacher to scene of confrontation but took no action]; see also Nallan, 50 N.Y.2d at 522–523, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 407 N.E.2d 451 [finding evidence that members of the public would foreseeably rely on performance by hotel and tailor their conduct accordingly]). This "ancient learning" compels denial of defendants’ motion (Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 167, 159 N.E. 896 [1928]).
One long-established way to assume such a duty is to promise assistance or protection, causing others to forgo precautions or withhold their own aid (see Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 420,431 [2013] [EMTs' assurances in performing CPR and awaiting an ambulance prevented mother from transporting injured child to nearby hospital]; Bardio v Rego II Borrower, LLC, 213 A.D.3d 626, 629 [2d Dept 2023] [security guard acceded to the plaintiff's request to help her find her car]; Xenias v City of New York, 191 A.D.3d 453, 453-454 [1st Dept 2021] [911 operator assured the plaintiff "we are on our way," preventing the plaintiff from taking additional actions to secure help]; Pascucci v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 305 A.D.2d 103, 105 [1st Dept 2003] [secretary acknowledged the plaintiff's request for assistance, implicitly promising to act on the plaintiff's behalf]; Bloom v City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 594 [2d Dept 1986] [security guard accompanied teacher to scene of confrontation but took no action]; see also Nallan, 50 N.Y.2d at 522-523 [finding evidence that members of the public would foreseeably rely on performance by hotel and tailor their conduct accordingly]).
Discretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results, whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result (seeTango v. Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 34, 41, 471 N.Y.S.2d 73, 459 N.E.2d 182 ; Devlin v. City of New York, 193 A.D.3d 819, 148 N.Y.S.3d 149 ). A municipal emergency response system, including ambulance assistance rendered by first responders such as the emergency medical technicians (hereinafter EMTs) employed by the Fire Department of the City of New York in this case, is a classic governmental, rather than proprietary, function (seeApplewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 420, 430, 972 N.Y.S.2d 169, 995 N.E.2d 131 ; Xenias v. City of New York, 191 A.D.3d 453, 142 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; Halberstam v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 175 A.D.3d 1264, 109 N.Y.S.3d 111 ). The actions taken by the EMTs in this case were discretionary (seeKinsey v. City of New York, 141 A.D.3d 420, 36 N.Y.S.3d 8 ; Dixon v. City of New York, 120 A.D.3d at 753, 991 N.Y.S.2d 463 ; DiMeo v. Rotterdam Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1423, 974 N.Y.S.2d 178 ).
Finally, contrary to the contentions of both defendants on their appeal and plaintiff on her cross appeal, there are triable issues of fact regarding the element of special duty and the affirmative defense of governmental function immunity. The court thus properly denied both defendants’ motion and plaintiff's cross motion insofar as they sought summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the County (see generallyColeson v. City of New York , 24 N.Y.3d 476, 482-483, 999 N.Y.S.2d 810, 24 N.E.3d 1074 [2014] ; Xenias v. City of New York , 191 A.D.3d 453, 453-454, 142 N.Y.S.3d 148 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Williams v. City of New York , 188 A.D.3d 442, 442, 131 N.Y.S.3d 863 [1st Dept. 2020] ).
Finally, contrary to the contentions of both defendants on their appeal and plaintiff on her cross appeal, there are triable issues of fact regarding the element of special duty and the affirmative defense of governmental function immunity. The court thus properly denied both defendants' motion and plaintiff's cross motion insofar as they sought summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the County (see generally Coleson v City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 476, 482-483 [2014]; Xenias v City of New York, 191 A.D.3d 453, 453-454 [1st Dept 2021]; Williams v City of New York, 188 A.D.3d 442, 442 [1st Dept 2020]).
Several reported cases discuss the roles of EMTs, paramedics and 911 operators, but not the physicians working within the 911 response system. (see, e .g., Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 420 [2013]; Laratro v. City of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 79 [2006]; Xenias v. City of New York, 191 A.D.3d 453 [1st Dept. 2021]; Dixon v. City of New York, 120 A.D.3d 751 [2d Dept. 2014]). Having found that the City is immune from liability because Dr. Schneitzer was performing a governmental function at the time of the injury, the next inquiry is whether the doctor "voluntarily assumed a 'special relationship' with the [decedent] beyond the duty that is owed to the public generally" (Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d at 430) sufficient to create an exception to immunity.
A municipal emergency response system, including ambulance assistance rendered by first responders such as the emergency medical technicians (hereinafter EMTs) employed by the Fire Department of the City of New York in this case, is a classic governmental, rather than proprietary, function (see Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 420, 430; Xenias v. City of New York, 191 A.D.3d 453; Halberstam v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 175 A.D.3d 1264). The actions taken by the EMTs in this case were discretionary (see Kinsey v City of New York, 141 A.D.3d 420; Dixon v City of New York, 120 A.D.3d at 753; DiMeo v Rotterdam Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1423).