Boyd v. Village of Mamaroneck

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a special duty arising from government defendants’ response to a Family Court order directing the child’s mother to stay away and awarding the plaintiff temporary physical custody. The court concluded that the defendants had not conclusively established governmental function immunity or absolute immunity at the CPLR 3211(a)(7) stage. It reversed the orders dismissing the amended complaint and denying leave to file a second amended complaint and amend or serve a late notice of claim.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint sufficiently alleged a special relationship and special duty of care between Boyd or the child and the government defendants. A Family Court order directing a person to stay away from a protected party and awarding temporary custody may qualify as a temporary order of protection, or its equivalent, for purposes of establishing the first two Cuffy factors.
2. The government defendants did not conclusively establish on their CPLR 3211(a)(7) motions that their conduct was wholly protected by governmental-function immunity. The Village defendants failed to establish that their response to the order was purely discretionary, and the County defendants failed to establish that their conduct was discretionary rather than ministerial or that any discretion was actually exercised in relation to the conduct alleged.
3. The Village defendants were entitled to dismissal of the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first causes of action alleging negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or training.
4. The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying leave to serve a late notice of claim. Plaintiff established timely actual or imputed knowledge of the essential facts, and the defendants failed to make a particularized showing of substantial prejudice.
5. Plaintiff should have been granted leave to serve and file the proposed second amended complaint because it made no substantive changes to the amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged a special relationship and special duty of care between Boyd or the child and the government defendants.
2. Whether the government defendants conclusively established governmental-function immunity or absolute prosecutorial immunity on the pleadings.
3. Whether the Village defendants' negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or training claims were duplicative of respondeat superior claims.
4. Whether plaintiff should have been granted leave to serve a late notice of claim.
5. Whether plaintiff should have been granted leave to serve and file a proposed second amended complaint.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded