Legal Opinion
Quinn v. Nadler Bros.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 16, 1983PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs. The City of Amsterdam has no special duty to its fire fighters for its failure to enforce city ordinances designed to protect the general public from health, safety and fire hazards (see O’Connor v City of New York, 58 NY2d 184; Sanchez v Village of Liberty, 42 NY2d 878; Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 NY2d 134).
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Motyka v. City of AmsterdamNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
- O'Connor v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Antonucci v. Port Chester-Rye Union Free School DistrictNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pelaez v. SeideNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Dore v. SchultzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Chung v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1984
- Joslyn v. Village of Sylvan BeachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998