New York Court of Appeals, 1985

Solomon v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 26, 1985

66 N.Y.2d 1026; 489 N.E.2d 1294; 499 N.Y.S.2d 392; 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18366

Cases that cite this one

254 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Percy King and George Russell v. Crossland Savings Bank and American Express Company (2d Cir. 1997)
Dooley v. United States (2d Cir. 2023)
Smith v. Roadie, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2023)
C.B. v. Incorporated Vil. of Garden City (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
American Insurance v. City of Jamestown (District Court, W.D. New York 2012)
Wimbledon Financing Master Fund LTD. v. Bienert Miller & Katzman, PLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
Tango v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
Scott v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
Fasone v. JM & AM Realty Holdings, LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
Anson v. United States (District Court, W.D. New York 2018)
Lopez v. United States (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2018)
Cheeseboro v. Little Richie Bus Service, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2017)
Crout v. Haverfield International, Inc. (District Court, W.D. New York 2017)
Rodriguez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Citarella v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 2015)
Chaney v. Starbucks Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. v. General Electric Capital Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Hodge (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
Lan Sang v. Ming Hai (District Court, S.D. New York 2013)
Young-Gibson v. Patel (District Court, W.D. New York 2013)
Evans v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
2006 Frank Calandra, Jr. Irrevocable Trust v. Signature Bank Corp. (2d Cir. 2012)
Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Ass'n (District Court, E.D. New York 2012)
Delano v. United States (District Court, W.D. New York 2012)
Rapaport v. Robin S. Weingast & Associates, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom (Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 333, citing Prosser, Torts § 30, at 143 [4th ed]). In its proprietary capacity, "a municipality is under a duty to maintain its park and playground facilities in a reasonably safe condition” (Nicholson v Board of Educ., 36 NY2d 798, 799). This duty "includes not only physical care of the property but also prevention of ultrahazardous and criminal activity of which it has knowledge” (Benjamin v City of New York, 64 NY2d 44, 46). Bicycle riding on a busy promenade does not rise to the level of "ultrahazardous and criminal” (see, Zarillo v State of New York, 8 AD2d 651, affd 7 NY2d 943; cf. Benjamin v City of New York, 64 NY2d 44, supra; Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268; Nicholson v Board of Educ., *102836 NY2d 798, supra). Thus, as a matter of law, the city did not breach its duty to plaintiffs.

Nor has plaintiff stated a cause of action based on the city’s alleged failure to enforce the regulations prohibiting bicycle riding in the area where the infant plaintiff was injured. By promulgating and enforcing these regulations, intended for the protection of the general public, defendant did not assume a special relationship toward the infant plaintiff carrying with it a special duty to protect the latter from the prohibited activity (Sorichetti v City of New York, 65 NY2d 461, 468; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 304; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195-196).

Because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a duty of care owed by defendant, the complaint was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.