From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oakbridge Realty Corp. v. Jericho Water Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 1989
150 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 22, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion of Jericho Water District for summary judgment is granted, and the actions against the remaining defendants are severed.

The defendant Jericho Water District (hereinafter Jericho) cannot be held liable for the damages incurred by the plaintiffs as the result of a fire. While the plaintiffs maintain that the fire spread rapidly because the hydrant nearest to the fire was inoperable, Jericho, acting as a public entity, had no duty to keep its water system in proper repair for firefighting purposes unless a special relationship existed between it and the plaintiffs (see, Steitz v City of Beacon, 295 N.Y. 51; Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160; Blancovitch v City of New York, 131 A.D.2d 418). The record clearly demonstrated that Jericho had no contact with the plaintiffs, and accordingly no special relationship existed (see, Kogel Lbr. Supply v Suffolk County Water Auth., 131 A.D.2d 728). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Oakbridge Realty Corp. v. Jericho Water Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 1989
150 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Oakbridge Realty Corp. v. Jericho Water Dist

Case Details

Full title:OAKBRIDGE REALTY CORP. et al., Respondents, v. JERICHO WATER DISTRICT…

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

Date published: May 22, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
541 N.Y.S.2d 532

Citing Cases

Howell v. Massapequa Fire District

The Fire District met its initial burden by demonstrating that the appellants failed to establish the…