Appellate Division observed that this appeal presented it with an opportunity to provide "additional clarity" concerning when a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff thereby subjecting the municipality to liability in negligence for breaching that special duty, and, relatedly, when the municipality may rely on the governmental function immunity defense.
For the reasons set out in the decision of the Appellate Division in the instant matter, the Appellate Division held that a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a protected party, or the parent of a protected party, when responding to a request to enforce the "stay away" provisions of a court order such as the one at issue in this case.
The Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court erred when it granted the government defendants' separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.