Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · Torts
TortsGeneral Municipal Law § 205-eGeneral Municipal Law § 205-emunicipal liabilitypersonal injuriesmotion to dismissreinstatement of statutory claimSchiavone v City of New York
Facts
The plaintiffs brought an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the City of New York. Their complaint included causes of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e. The Supreme Court granted the branch of the City's motion seeking dismissal of those statutory causes of action. On appeal, the City conceded that those claims had to be reinstated in light of Schiavone v City of New York.
Issue
Whether the plaintiffs' causes of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e should remain dismissed, or instead be reinstated in light of the Court of Appeals' decision in Schiavone v City of New York.
Rule
Where controlling Court of Appeals precedent establishes that claims brought under General Municipal Law § 205-e are viable, dismissal of those claims is improper and they must be reinstated.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Brooklyn, firefighter Lena Ortiz sued the City of New York for personal injuries and included a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e. The trial court dismissed only the § 205-e count, but before the appeal was decided, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision making clear that this type of § 205-e claim is legally viable.
How should the appellate court rule on Lena's appeal from the dismissal of the § 205-e cause of action?
Explanation. The governing rule is narrow: when controlling Court of Appeals precedent establishes that a General Municipal Law § 205-e claim is viable, dismissal of that claim is improper and it must be reinstated. The appellate court should therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from and deny the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the § 205-e cause of action. (Derived from McMillon v. City of New York (n.d.).)