Wiese & Aydiner, PLLC, Mineola (Si Aydiner of counsel), for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Garrett C. Fisher of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered February 18, 2021, which granted defendants City of New York, New York Police Department, and Traffic Enforcement Agent Gomez's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's testimony that defendant Gomez directed him to proceed through an intersection, immediately after which he was struck by a taxicab, is an insufficient factual predicate for the theory that defendant City owed him a special duty of protection (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Blackstock v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 84 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2011]). It establishes neither that the City assumed any duty, either through promises or actions, to act on his behalf nor that he relied on such a promise (see Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]; Shands v Escalona, 44 AD3d 524, 524 [1st Dept 2007]). Indeed, plaintiff testified that he did not make eye contact with Gomez.

In any event, since Gomez was engaged in the discretionary governmental function of directing traffic when the accident occurred, the City cannot be held liable for his acts (see Valdez, 18 NY3d at 75-76; Jagatpal v Chamble, 172 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2019]). Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gesmer, Moulton, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2021 NY Slip Op 30447(U).]