Laratro v. City of New York

12 Citing briefs

  1. William Heeran,, et al., Respondents,v.Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

    Brief

    Filed January 9, 2018

    3). If LIPA were granted governmental function immunity for the allegations in the amended complaint, but remained ultimately financially responsible for liability from the operation of the T&D System, it would be less effective due to the threat of excessive liability, which “deter[s] or paralyze[s] useful activity,” in the exact same ways as described in Point I.F. Laratro, 8 NY3d at 82. Recognizing LIPA’s immunity while refusing to extend that immunity to NGES would therefore defeat the purpose of governmental function immunity.

  2. William Baumann, et al., Respondents,v.Long Island Power Authority, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

    Brief

    Filed January 9, 2018

    3). If LIPA were granted governmental function immunity for the allegations in the amended complaint, but remained ultimately financially responsible for liability from the operation of the T&D System, it would be less effective due to the threat of excessive liability, which “deter[s] or paralyze[s] useful activity,” in the exact same ways as described in Point I.F. Laratro, 8 NY3d at 82. Recognizing LIPA’s immunity while refusing to extend that immunity to NGES would therefore defeat the purpose of governmental function immunity.

  3. Barbara Connolly, et al., Respondents,v.Long Island Power Authority, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

    Brief

    Filed January 9, 2018

    3). If LIPA were granted governmental function immunity for the allegations in the amended complaint, but remained ultimately financially responsible for liability from the operation of the T&D System, it would be less effective due to the threat of excessive liability, which “deter[s] or paralyze[s] useful activity,” in the exact same ways as described in Point I.F. Laratro, 8 NY3d at 82. Recognizing LIPA’s immunity while refusing to extend that immunity to NGES would therefore defeat the purpose of governmental function immunity.

  4. Barbara Connolly, et al., Respondents,v.Long Island Power Authority, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

    Brief

    Filed January 9, 2018

    This is precisely the type of paralyzing burden that governmental function immunity is meant to alleviate. See Laratro, 8 NY3d at 82. 32 POINT VIII RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS RESPECTING NATIONAL GRID CONFLATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY Respondents argue that even if LIPA were immune, “[NGES] would not be inasmuch as New York has never recognized any form of government contractor tort immunity.”

  5. Tiffany Applewhite,, et al., Respondents,v.Accuhealth, Inc., et al., Defendants, City of New York, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed January 7, 2013

    This Court has held that the justifiable reliance requirement is particularly important in a special duty analysis because it rationally defines and limits the class of persons to whom the special duty extends. Lauer v. City of New York 95 NY2d 95, 102 (2000); Laratro, 8 NY3d 79; Kircher. It also ensures a causal relationship between the government's assurances and the injury.

  6. Tiffany Applewhite,, et al., Respondents,v.Accuhealth, Inc., et al., Defendants, City of New York, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed January 7, 2013

    In fact, in Laratro, supra, this Court acknowledged the fundamentally public nature of emergency medical services, proclaiming that " [p]rotecting health and safety is one of municipal government's most important duties." 8 NY3d at 81. In effect, plaintiffs attempt to draw a jurisprudential line in the sand -- a boundary that they say is crossed once an EMS crew has responded to a 911 call and begun to interact with a sick or injured person, which has the effect of suddenly transforming the role of the EMS crew from governmental to proprietary.

  7. Barbara Connolly, et al., Respondents,v.Long Island Power Authority, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

    Brief

    Filed January 9, 2018

    Auth., 55 AD3d 549, 550 [2d Dept 2008] (where NYCTA personnel which included "officers of the New York City Police Department" allegedly acted negligently in "directing passengers to walk along the track bed to the Sheepshead Bay station"). 7 Applewhite, 21 NY3d at 428 (discussed infra); Laratro v Ciry rif New York, 8 NY3d 79, 82 [2006] (where plaintiff claimed "that the City of New York was slow in responding to a 911 call placed by plaintiff's coworker"). 33 (c) three cases, discussed in Point III of this brief, which appellants characterize as holding that municipalities are immune for negligence in failing to reasonably address a "natural disaster" (App. Br.

  8. William Heeran,, et al., Respondents,v.Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

    Brief

    Filed January 9, 2018

    6 The predictive nature of the decision to preemptively de-energize combined with the public safety risks posed by the precaution itself make LIPA especially vulnerable to the “Catch-22” that governmental function immunity seeks to prevent. See Laratro v City of New York, 8 NY3d 79, 81 (2006). This dilemma does not exist in all tort cases, but does here because the precaution Respondents argue LIPA should have taken – preemptive de-energization – itself creates a self- evident public safety danger.

  9. Tiffany Applewhite,, et al., Respondents,v.Accuhealth, Inc., et al., Defendants, City of New York, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed January 7, 2013

    e and life expectancies rise municipal emergency services will play an increasingly important role in the fabric of our communities For this reason the policy of our State should be to encourage municipalities to provide this important governmental function To expand the liability standard against municipalities may force municipalities to forgo providing onscene emergency medical services However New Yorks Courts have long recognized that there can be no liability against a municipality for negligence without the plaintiff demonstrating that a specific duty was owed to that person Valdez v City of New York 18 NY3d 69 2011 Stated differently under the public duty rule although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to furnish police protection this does not 6 create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim Valdez Furthermore this court has established that providing emergency medical services is a governmental function Laratro v City of New York 8 NY3d 79 2006 In Laratro the Court correctly opined Protecting health and safety is one of municipal governments most important duties Since municipalities are run by human beings they sometimes fail in that duty with harmful even catastrophic consequences When that happens as a general rule the municipality is not required to pay damages to the person injured The rationale for this rule is that the cost to municipalities of allowing recovery would be excessive the threat of liability might deter or paralyze useful activity and thus the net result of allowing recovery would be to make municipal governments less not more effective in protecting their citizens This Court further recognized in Cuffy v City of New York 69 NY2d 255 1987 a narrow right to recover from a municipality for its negligent failure to provide police protection where a promise of protection was made to a particular citizen and as a consequence a special duty to that citizen arose Essential to recovery is proof that the plaintiff

  10. Tiffany Applewhite,, et al., Respondents,v.Accuhealth, Inc., et al., Defendants, City of New York, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed January 7, 2013

    See, Cuffy v. NYC, supra; Sorichetti v. NYC, 65 N.Y.2d 461 (1985). We are not here considering the timeliness of an EMS response or other allegation related to conduct before the medical care providers arrived on the scene to provide treatment (Laratro v. NYC, 8 N.Y.3d 79 (2006)), but rather negligence in the provision of emergency medical treatment after they arrived. Schrempf, supra; Miller v. State, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 513 (1984).