Legal Opinion
Rood Utilities, Inc. v. City of Auburn
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 8, 1996No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints. A municipality may not be held liable for failing to provide adequate fire protection unless it assumed a special duty to the individual plaintiff (see, Kena*874van v City of New York, 70 NY2d 558, 568-569; O’Connor v City of New York, 58 NY2d 184, 189-192, rearg denied 59 NY2d 762; Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 NY2d 134). To establish a "special relationship”, a plaintiff must show that the municipality, through affirmative acts or promises,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- H. R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Cuffy v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- De Long v. County of ErieNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Steitz v. City of BeaconNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- Motyka v. City of AmsterdamNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Babcock v. Mason County Fire District No. 6Court of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6Court of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- Ehmke v. City of LockportAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Mack Studios Displays, Inc. v. City of AuburnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Preaster v. City of SyracuseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018