From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zimmerman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2925.

June 1, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2008, which granted plaintiffs' post-trial motion to set aside a jury verdict as to damages, and denied defendants' cross motion to set aside the verdict as to liability and damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for appellants.

Seligson, Rothman Rothman, New York (Martin S. Rothman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., McGuire, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.


In this action for personal injury sustained by a school psychologist during an altercation between two students, plaintiffs failed to allege or prove the existence of a special relationship that would establish an affirmative duty on defendants' part toward the injured party ( see Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260-261). There was no evidence that the Board of Education had undertaken any specific security measures for plaintiff Zimmerman's exclusive benefit beyond the general security for which it was responsible ( see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861), or that Zimmerman justifiably relied on any security measures or other assurances so as to lull her into a false sense of security or a belief that such measures were specifically intended for her exclusive benefit ( see Buder v City of New York, 43 AD3d 720; see also Dinardo v City of New York, 13 NY3d 872).

Plaintiffs demonstrated no direct contact with agents of the Board of Education regarding such security measures or the incident leading to her injuries that might have created such a special relationship ( see e.g. Laratro v City of New York, 8 NY3d 79). Nor did she demonstrate that any such contacts in general might have alerted the Board to the need for enhanced protection under the circumstances ( see e.g. Euell v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 57 AD3d 837). [Prior Case History: 21 Misc 3d 1146(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 52518(U).]


Summaries of

Zimmerman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Zimmerman v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:APRIL ZIMMERMAN et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jun 1, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4654
903 N.Y.S.2d 21

Citing Cases

Zimmerman v. City of New York

Decided March 24, 2011. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 74 AD3d 439. Motions for Leave to Appeal…

Sutton v. City of N.Y.

To the contrary, since the 911? calls about the alleged danger presented by the unrestrained dogs were…