Rivas v City of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 01293 [180 AD3d 592]
February 25, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2020


[*1]
 Ericka Rivas et al., Appellants,
v
City of New York et al., Respondents.

Law Office of Ryan S. Goldstein, PLLC, Bronx (Ryan Seth Goldstein of counsel), for appellants.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Barbara Graves-Poller of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered February 13, 2019, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs allege that they suffered personal injuries when they were attacked by a group of unknown assailants as they were visiting an outdoor pool owned and operated by the City defendants.

The complaint was properly dismissed. Although plaintiffs' allegations that defendants failed to provide adequate security personnel gave rise to a general duty of care, plaintiffs failed to plead sufficiently that defendants owed them a special duty of care (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 17 NY3d 428, 451 [2011]; but see Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 273-274 [1952]). Plaintiffs also failed to allege or provide the factual predicate for a special relationship under the special duty doctrine (see Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]; Blackstock v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 84 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Webber, Singh, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2019 NY Slip Op 30318(U).]