You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Thomas v. City of New York

Citations: 214 A.D.2d 724; 625 N.Y.S.2d 630; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4531

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 24, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a wrongful death action initiated by the plaintiff against the defendants following the fatal shooting of a night watchman by an intruder in a storage yard leased by the Board of Education of the City of New York. The plaintiff alleged negligence due to the defendants' failure to secure the premises and ensure employee safety. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The court's decision was based on the principle that providing security against third-party attacks is a governmental function and does not incur liability unless a special duty of protection is owed. In this instance, the court found no evidence of such a special duty towards the decedent, who was tasked with securing the premises. The decision to grant summary judgment was upheld, referencing established legal precedents, with the concurrence of Justices Bracken, Pizzuto, Hart, and Krausman.

Legal Issues Addressed

Governmental Immunity in Security Provision

Application: The court found that the provision of security against third-party attacks is a governmental function, which does not incur liability unless a special duty is owed.

Reasoning: Established legal precedent indicates that providing security against third-party attacks is considered a governmental function, which does not incur liability unless a special duty of protection is owed.

Special Duty Requirement

Application: The defendants were not found liable as there was no evidence of a special duty of protection owed to the decedent, who was responsible for securing the premises.

Reasoning: In this case, there is no evidence that the defendants had such a special duty toward the decedent, who was responsible for securing the premises himself.

Summary Judgment in Negligence Claims

Application: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint due to lack of evidence demonstrating a breach of a special duty.

Reasoning: The plaintiff, Lucy Ann Thomas, appeals an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing her complaint.