Upset with the construction on a neighboring lot, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Village, alleging negligence and breach of contract for failing to take any action to stop the construction which the plaintiff maintained was in violation of the zoning regulations.  In dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action, the Court reiterated that, “[I]t has long been the rule in this State that, in the absence of some special relationship creating a duty to exercise care for the benefit of particular individuals, liability may not be imposed on a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation.”  Citing to O’Connor v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 184, 192 (1984). For a special relationship to exist, one of three things must occur: 1) a municipality must violate a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; 2) a municipality voluntarily assumes a duty that generates reliance by a person who so benefits from the action; or 3) a municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known safety violation. 

 

In reversing the trial court, the appellate court held that the “adoption of zoning ordinances and building codes by a municipality does not create a special relationship with its residents.” These laws are enacted for the general public, and do not give rise to a special relationship between a municipality and an individual therein. Although the plaintiff alleged that she informed the Village of the purported violations, she never alleged that the Village took any affirmative act which may have induced her reliance thereon so as to create a special relationship. While the plaintiff further alleged that the Mayor had a personal ownership interest in the construction and that therefore the Village had a propriety interest, she provided no evidence to support her claims and the court found the allegation to be insufficient to state a cause of action.

 

 

Bell v. Village of Stamford, 2008 WL 2050837 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 5/15/2008).

 

The opinion can be accessed at: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2008/504169.pdf

 

 

Note: This case is example of how plaintiffs attempt to use allegations of unethical conduct on the part of municipal officials to support their substantive allegations against government action (or in this case, inaction).  For a summary of cases over the last year where ethics allegations were front and center in land use litigation, see: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120289