Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

City not subject to tort liability for injury resulting from a discretionary decision involving the exercise of reasoned judgment

City not subject to tort liability for injury resulting from a discretionary decision involving the exercise of reasoned judgment
Heckel v City of New York, 60 AD3d 812

Glenn Heckel, an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation was injured when, while placing a piece of cardboard into the smaller of two compartments of the truck being used for collection, his hand became caught under a "hopper blade."

Heckel filed a notice of claim, in which he alleged that the City was negligent in, among other things, requiring sanitation workers to place cardboard and paper recyclables into the smaller compartment, an "inherently dangerous practice."

The City?s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was rejected by Supreme Court, which held that there was a triable issues of fact as to whether the City was negligent in requiring sanitation workers to place cardboard and paper recyclables into the smaller compartment, and as to whether the City was negligent in failing to properly train and supervise the plaintiff concerning the placement of cardboard into the sanitation truck. The Appellate Division reverse the lower court?s ruling.

The Appellate Division said that the City had demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, among other things, that it could not be subjected to tort liability for its decision to require sanitation workers to place cardboard and paper recyclables into the smaller compartment, as that decision constituted a discretionary act involving the exercise of reasoned judgment, citing Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186.

In this instance, said the court, the City submitted evidence showing that the decision was made by a Sanitation Department district superintendent, who, ?based on certain information he gathered and his experience, determined that the larger compartment was more appropriately used for metal, glass, and plastic recyclables, which could include large items such as refrigerators.?

In contrast, the Appellate Division commented that Heckel failed to produce evidence tending to show that the superintendent's act was ministerial in nature or that his determination did not involve the exercise of reasoned judgment, thereby failing to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the City?s claim of governmental immunity.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 12, 2010 (boomark / email).