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.
Alva ARMSTRONG, et al., appellants, et al., plaintiffs, v. Winston G. SCOTT, et al., defendants, City of New York, respondent (and third-party actions).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs Alva Armstrong, Cheryl Armstrong, Sasha Armstrong, an infant by her parent and natural guardian Cheryl Armstrong, and Kara Charles, an infant by her mother and natural guardian Anne-Marie Charles appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated July 31, 2003, as granted the motion of the defendant City of New York which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of those plaintiffs insofar as asserted against it, and the plaintiffs Lincoln David, individually and as administrator of the estate of Zachel David, and Donna Debra Joseph, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Donn Anthony Joseph, separately appeal from the same order.
ORDERED that the appeals by the plaintiff Lincoln David, individually and as administrator of the estate of Zachel David, and Donna Debra Joseph, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Donn Anthony Joseph, are dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][e] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiffs Alva Armstrong, Cheryl Armstrong, Sasha Armstrong, an infant by her parent and natural guardian Cheryl Armstrong, and Kara Charles, an infant by her mother and natural guardian Anne-Marie Charles; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant City of New York payable by the plaintiffs Alva Armstrong, Cheryl Armstrong, Sasha Armstrong, an infant by her parent and natural guardian Cheryl Armstrong, and Kara Charles, an infant by her mother and natural guardian Anne-Marie Charles.
The plaintiffs Alva Armstrong, Cheryl Armstrong, Sasha Armstrong, an infant by her parent and natural guardian Cheryl Armstrong, and Kara Charles, an infant by her mother and natural guardian Anne-Marie Charles (hereinafter the plaintiffs) commenced this action against, among others, the City of New York, with respect to injuries sustained during the West Indian American Day Parade in 1999. The plaintiffs alleged that the City negligently supervised the vehicles and participants in the parade. They alleged that this negligent supervision proximately caused their injuries when a vehicle driven by the defendant Ashton Gretton, participating in the parade without registering with the sponsor, the defendant West Indian American Day Carnival Association, Inc., struck them from behind. The plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that the City voluntarily assumed the duty of screening each parade vehicle for sponsor registration prior to the parade, and performed that duty in a negligent manner.
In response to the City's prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of a special relationship between them and the New York City Police Department (hereinafter the Police Department) (see Pelaez v. Seide, 2 N.Y.3d 186, 778 N.Y.S.2d 111, 810 N.E.2d 393). They failed to establish a duty running directly to them, as there was no evidence of contact with or reliance upon the police or any police activities or assurances during or before the parade (see Kovit v. Estate of Hallums, 4 N.Y.3d 499, 797 N.Y.S.2d 20, 829 N.E.2d 1188; Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95, 711 N.Y.S.2d 112, 733 N.E.2d 184; Merced v. City of New York, 75 N.Y.2d 798, 552 N.Y.S.2d 96, 551 N.E.2d 589; Kircher v. City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251, 544 N.Y.S.2d 995, 543 N.E.2d 443; Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937; Helman v. County of Warren, 67 N.Y.2d 799, 501 N.Y.S.2d 325, 492 N.E.2d 398; see also Maslowski v. Kalikow & Co., 168 A.D.2d 265, 562 N.Y.S.2d 125). Since the plaintiffs cannot identify a duty owed to them by the City, their negligence claims must fail (see Lauer v. City of New York, supra; Anton v. State of New York, 304 A.D.2d 510, 757 N.Y.S.2d 338). Moreover, assuming a duty existed due to the Police Department's voluntary assumption of the task of screening parade vehicles for sponsor registration before the parade, there is no evidence in the record that such screening was intended to benefit a specific group of persons rather than the public at large, or that any plaintiff relied upon that assumption of duty (cf. Florence v. Goldberg, 44 N.Y.2d 189, 404 N.Y.S.2d 583, 375 N.E.2d 763). Accordingly, the City is entitled to governmental immunity and its motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
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: September 19, 2005
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)