Vitale v. City of New York, 458 N.E.2d 817 (NY 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Vitale v. City of New York, 458 N.E.2d 817 (NY 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
81 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Betancourt v. City of New York (nyappdiv, 2025-04-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Betancourt v. City of New York (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
However, absent a special duty owed to plaintiff, liability for her injuries may not be imposed on the municipal defendants ( Bonner v City of New York , 73 NY2d 930, 932 [1989]; Vitale v City of New York , 60 NY2d 861, 863 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hankey v. Ogdensburg City Sch. Dist.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Footnote 3: Plaintiffs are correct that, in the absence of any allegation on their part of a special duty owed to Hankey, the duty of care relied upon by defendant on appeal, concerning a school district's performance of its governmental function to supervise its students, is inapposite ( see Vitale v City of New York , 60 NY2d 861, 863 [1983]; Destefano v City of New York , 149 AD3d 696, 697 [2d Dept 2017]; Goga v Binghamton City School Dist. , 302 AD2d at 651 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buder v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Plaintiffs theory is that defendants owed her a special duty of protection (see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, 863 [1983] [general rule that absent a special duty, a municipality cannot be held liable for failure to provide police protection applies in favor of board of education in cases of classroom assaults on teachers by students]) because (1) her principal had promised her a paraprofessional for this special education “advisory class,” which included students with emotional problems and in which the students were encouraged to discuss anything that was bothering them, and (2)…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maldonado v. Tuckahoe Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Moreover, the defendants’ alleged negligence in this case— i.e., the failure to protect the injured plaintiff from the criminal act of a third party—involves a governmental function for which the defendants may not be held liable in the absence of a special duty (see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, 863 [1983]; Moreno v City of New York, 27 AD3d 536 [2006]; Johnson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 270 AD2d 310 [2000]; Rashed v State of New York, 232 AD2d 394 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moreno v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Liability may not be imposed upon a municipality or governmental entity for the breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system or members of the public unless a special duty exists (see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, 863 [1983]; Johnson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 249 AD2d 370 [1998]; Bisignano v City of New York, 136 AD2d 671 [1988]).
discussed Cited "see" Villa-Lefler v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
"Absent the existence of a special relationship between the defendants and the . . . plaintiff, liability may not be imposed on the defendants for a breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system and members of the public" ( Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 161 AD3d 1065 , 1067; see Vitale v City of New York , 60 NY2d 861, 863 ).
discussed Cited "see" Weisbecker v. West Islip Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
The “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties . . . is a governmental function . . . and ... no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” (Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932 [1989]; see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 [1983]; Jerideau v Huntington Union Free School Dist., 21 AD3d 992, 993 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Weisbecker v. West Islip Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
The “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties . . . is a governmental function . . . and ... no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” (Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932 [1989]; see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 [1983]; Jerideau v Huntington Union Free School Dist., 21 AD3d 992, 993 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Stinson v. Roosevelt U.F.S.D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Liability thus may not be imposed upon the defendant “absent the existence of a special duty together with justifiable reliance thereon by the plaintiff to [his] detriment” (Reynolds v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 300 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]; see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 [1983]).
discussed Cited "see" Jerideau v. Huntington Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
The “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties . . . is a governmental function . . . and ... no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” (Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932 [1989]; see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 [1983]; Manning v Ardsley Union Free School Dist., 246 AD2d 632 [1998]).
cited Cited "see" Goga v. Binghamton City School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
School Dist., 189 AD2d 939, 940 ; see Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, 863 ; Glick v City of New York, 53 AD2d 528 , affd 42 NY2d 831 ).
discussed Cited "see" McEnaney v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
In case after case, the courts of this State have recognized that “ ‘the provision of security [including campus security] against physical attacks by third parties * * * is a governmental function involving policymaking regarding the nature of the risks presented, and * * * no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection’ ” (Ruchalski v Schenectady County Community Coll., 239 AD2d 687, 688 , quoting Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932, supra; see, Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 ; Weiner v Metropolitan Transp.
examined Cited "see" Genao v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Vitale v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 861 , 470 N.Y.S.2d 358 , 458 N.E.2d 817 (1983) (student assault on junior high school teacher); Brady v. Bd. of Educ. of New York, 197 A.D.2d 655 , 602 N.Y.S.2d 892 (2d Dept.1993) (security guard failed to prevent student fight; teacher injured in intervention in student fight); Jacobellis v. City of New York, 197 A.D.2d 671, 671 , 602 N.Y.S.2d 877 (2d Dept.1993) (teacher unable to summon security personnel due to broken intercom; teacher sustained injuries removing weapon from student); Lasker v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 646 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 89 (2d …
discussed Cited "see" Pugliese v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · signal: accord · confidence high
Clearly, the specific act or omission for which plaintiff seeks to hold defendants accountable, failure to provide effective security forces on a city university campus, involves the performance of what is essentially a governmental function (see, Education Law § 6203; accord, Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Blackstock v. Board of Education
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, in order to impose liability, plaintiff had to show that defendant owed her a special duty of protection (see Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932 [1989]; see also Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, 863 [1983]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jennifer R. v. City of Syracuse
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Contrary to plaintiffs contention, it is well settled “that the provision of security against physical attacks by third parties [with respect to a cause of action against a school district for in adequate security or police protection] is a governmental function involving policymaking regarding the nature of the risks presented, and that no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” (Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932 [1989]; see Bain v New York City Bd. of Educ., 268 AD2d 451 [2000]; see also Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 86…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Varghese v. Sewanhaka Central High School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
It is well settled that the “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties in circumstances as are presented here, is a governmental function involving policy-making regarding the nature of the risks presented, and that no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” (Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932 ; see also, Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 ; Manning v Ardsley Union Free School Dist., 246 AD2d 631 ; Ruchalski v Schenectady County Community Coll., 239 AD2d 687 ; cf., Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Manning v. Ardsley Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
It is well settled that the “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties * * * is a governmental function * * * and that no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” (Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930 ; see also, Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 ; Ruchalski v Schenectady County Community Coll., 239 AD2d 687 ; Krakower v City of New York, 217 AD2d 441 ; Thomas v City of New York, 214 AD2d 724 ; Lasker v City of New York, 194 AD2d 646 ; Marilyn S. v City of New York, 134 AD2d 583 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Laura O. v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, the order is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed (see, Marilyn S. v City of New York, supra; see also, Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peter Vitale
v.
City of New York
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 22, 1983.
458 N.E.2d 817
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Michael Gage and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellants., Anthony J. Pirrotti for respondent.
Cited by 64 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the action dismissed.

Plaintiff, an industrial arts teacher at a junior high school, was injured when he was assaulted by one of the students as he sought to break up an altercation in the hallway of the school. Asserted liability of the city was predicated on evidence of unjustified failure fully to have observed a detailed security plan promulgated by the board of education pursuant to section 2801 of the Education Law.* This plan was designed to maintain public order on[*863] school property, and among its beneficiaries were students, teachers, staff members, visitors and other licensees and invitees alike.

Plaintiff recognizes, as he must, that absent a special duty owed to him liability for his injuries may not be imposed on the city for its breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system and members of the public (Glick v City of New York, 53 AD2d 528, affd 42 NY2d 831; Bass v City of New York, 38 AD2d 407, affd 32 NY2d 894; Riss v City of New York, 22 NY2d 579). It is his contention, however, that a special relationship was created between him and the board of education when the security plan was adopted and that the board breached its special duty of care to him when it failed to enforce its own security rules. He grounds his assertion of special duty, and seeks to distinguish the holding in the Glick case, on the circumstance that as a teacher he was himself an integral component of that plan. Nothing in the adoption or content of the plan warrants a finding that it was designed or intended specially for his benefit or that of other teachers in the school. They stood as its beneficiaries in exactly the same position as students, other personnel in the school system, and members of the public who came on the school property. We reject his contention that because the teachers had a role to play in the implementation of the plan they were somehow thereby converted into its special beneficiaries. Indeed other than reciting the bare fact that as a teacher plaintiff had responsibilities for implementation of the plan, he advances no rationale as to why that fact without more should give rise to the special duty which is a condition precedent to governmental liability.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

That section provides:

“Regulation by boards of education of conduct on school district property

“1. The board of education, as defined in section two of this chapter, of every school district, however created, within the state shall adopt rules and regulations for the maintenance of public order on school property and shall provide a program for the enforcement thereof. Such rules and regulations shall govern the conduct of students, teachers and other staff as well as visitors and other licensees and invitees. The penalties for violations of such rules and regulations shall be clearly set forth therein and shall include provisions for the ejection of a violator from the school property and in the case of a student or teacher, his suspension, expulsion or other appropriate discipli[*863] nary actions. Such rules and regulations shall be filed with the regents and the commissioner of education not later than ninety days after the effective date of this act. All amendments to such rules and regulations shall be filed with the regents and the commissioner of education not later than ten days after their adoption.

“2. If the board of education fails to file" the rules and regulations within the time required by this section such school district may not be eligible to receive any state aid or assistance until such rules and regulations are duly filed.

“3. Nothing contained in this section is intended nor shall it be construed to limit or restrict the freedom of speech nor peaceful assembly.”