Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lourdes GONZALEZ, appellant, v. BARBIERI, INC., et al., defendants, City of New York, respondent (and four related actions).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated January 22, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the cross claims is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from and reviewed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured while on an amusement park ride known as the “Hell Hole” at Coney Island Astroland Park in Brooklyn. She claims that the City of New York is at fault in the happening of the accident based on an alleged violation of Labor Law § 870-e, the statute governing permits and inspections for such rides.
Absent the existence of a special duty owed to a particular plaintiff, a municipality cannot be held liable for its failure to enforce a specific statute or regulation (see, Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 510, 478 N.Y.S.2d 829, 467 N.E.2d 493; Garrett v. Holiday Inns, 58 N.Y.2d 253, 261-262, 460 N.Y.S.2d 774, 447 N.E.2d 717; O'Connor v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 184, 189, 460 N.Y.S.2d 485, 447 N.E.2d 33). Labor Law § 870-e inures to the benefit of the public at large, and the plaintiff alleges no facts sufficient to demonstrate that the City exercised direction or control over the operation of the amusement ride. Therefore, no special duty existed and the City cannot be held liable (see, e.g., O'Connor v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 184, 191, 460 N.Y.S.2d 485, 447 N.E.2d 33; Worth Distrs. v. Latham, 59 N.Y.2d 231, 464 N.Y.S.2d 435, 451 N.E.2d 193; O'Brien v. Carven Assocs., 146 A.D.2d 614, 537 N.Y.S.2d 35; cf., Smullen v. City of New York, 28 N.Y.2d 66, 320 N.Y.S.2d 19, 268 N.E.2d 763).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 03, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)