N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Executive / ARTICLE State and Local Natural and Man-made Disaster Preparedness
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Executive Law § 25 (2026)

Use of local government resources in a disaster

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 25. Use of local government resources in a disaster. 1. Upon the
threat or occurrence of a disaster, the chief executive of any political
subdivision is hereby authorized and empowered to and shall use any and
all facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel and other resources of
his political subdivision in such manner as may be necessary or
appropriate to cope with the disaster or any emergency resulting
therefrom.
  2. Upon the threat or occurrence of a disaster, a chief executive may
request and accept assistance which is coordinated and directed by the
county chief executive as provided in section twenty-six of this
article.
  3. A chief executive may also request and accept assistance from any
other political subdivision and may receive therefrom and utilize any
real or personal property or the service of any personnel thereof on
such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed to by the chief
executives of the requesting and assisting political subdivisions.
  4. Upon the receipt of a request for assistance made pursuant to
subdivision two or three of this section, the chief executive of any
political subdivision may give, lend or lease, on such terms and
conditions as he may deem necessary to promote the public welfare and
protect the interests of such political subdivision, any services,
equipment, facilities, supplies or other resources of his political
subdivision.  Any lease or loan of real or personal property pursuant to
this subdivision, or any transfer of personnel pursuant hereto, shall be
only for the purpose of assisting a political subdivision in emergency
relief, reconstruction, or rehabilitation made necessary by the
disaster.
  5. A political subdivision shall not be liable for any claim based
upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a
discretionary function or duty on the part of any officer or employee in
carrying out the provisions of this section.
  6. The chief executive, when requesting assistance pursuant to this
section may request assistance from the civil defense and disaster
preparedness forces of any other political subdivision, but only if the
civil defense and disaster preparedness forces of the type being
requested have already been activated within the political subdivisions
requesting assistance. The chief executive of any political subdivision
receiving such a request is hereby authorized and empowered, subject to
the provisions of section twenty-six of this article, to respond
thereto.
  7. Any power or authority conferred upon any political subdivision by
this section shall be in addition to and not in substitution for or
limitation of any powers or authority otherwise vested in such
subdivision or any officer thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Pierce v. Hickey, 129 A.D.3d 1287 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pierce v. Hickey, 129 A.D.3d 1287 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 12× “Defendants then cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing, among other things, that they were immune from liability under Executive Law § 25 (5). Supreme Court denied the parties’ respective motions, prompting these appeals.”
In Re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 521 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “" N.Y. Exec. Law § 25 (5) (emphasis added).”
Daly v. Port Auth., 7 Misc. 3d 299 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). · cites it 11× “9 Executive Law § 25 (5) provides that “[a] political subdivision shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of any officer or employee in carrying out the provisions…”
Prospect v. Cohalan, 109 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “For example, Executive Law § 25 (1) mandates that local chief executives, “[u]pon the threat or occurrence of a disaster * * * use any and all facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel and other resources” to cope with emergencies.”
McCue v. City of New York, 521 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “” N.Y. Exec. Law § 25 (5) (emphasis added).”
Debari v. Town of Middleton, Ny, 9 F. Supp. 2d 156 (N.D.N.Y. 1998). “N.Y.Exec.Law § 25(5). Defendants’ argument runs that the decision of the town officials to condemn and demolish the DeBari Building constituted discretionary acts entitling both the Town of Middleton and Village of Margaretville to immunity under § 25(5).”
Litchhult v. Reiss, 183 A.D.2d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “, Executive Law § 25 [5]), This is in contrast to ministerial acts, which envision "direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result” (Tango v Tulevech, supra, at 41 ) and can be the basis for a lawsuit.”
Abate v. Cnty. of Erie, 2021 NY Slip Op 03940 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “Moreover, and contrary to defendants' further contention, the County is not entitled to immunity under Executive Law § 25 because that statute was not pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer ( see CPLR 3018 [b]; see generally Pitts v State of New York , 166 AD3d 1505 ,…”
Fox v. Cheminova, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 160 (E.D.N.Y 2005). “N.Y. Executive Law § 25 (emphasis added).”
In Re: World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig. (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” N.Y. Exec. Law § 25 (5) (emphasis added).”
Sluys v. Holbrook, 292 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “The decision of the Town Supervisor and Town Board to stabilize the slope in the immediate aftermath of the storm was a proper exercise of discretion which enjoys immunity from liability and should not be subject to second guessing (see, Executive Law § 25 [5]; Litchhult v…”
Litchhult v. Reiss, 149 Misc. 2d 584 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991). “That section, however, affords immunity only for discretionary functions and duties (Executive Law § 25 [5]). In order for the plaintiff’s complaint to withstand this motion to dismiss, plaintiff must establish that the acts of the municipality were ministerial, not…”
— N.Y. Executive Law § 25(5) — 1 case
Debari v. Town of Middleton, Ny, 9 F. Supp. 2d 156 (N.D.N.Y. 1998). “N.Y.Exec.Law § 25(5). Defendants’ argument runs that the decision of the town officials to condemn and demolish the DeBari Building constituted discretionary acts entitling both the Town of Middleton and Village of Margaretville to immunity under § 25(5).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.