Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 15 N.Y.2d 134 (1965)

A municipality is not liable for failure to supply general police or fire protection, absent a special relationship creating a specific duty to the plaintiff.

Summary

This case addresses whether the City of Amsterdam could be held liable for fire damage resulting from a defective oil heater in a multiple residence. The plaintiffs argued the city was negligent in failing to enforce the Multiple Residence Law after a fire captain warned a tenant about the heater’s defects. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that municipalities are not generally liable for failing to provide adequate fire protection unless a special relationship exists creating a specific duty of care to the injured party. The court distinguished this situation from cases where a specific duty to a particular individual was established.

Facts

A fire occurred in a multiple residence in Amsterdam, allegedly caused by a defective oil heating stove installed by a tenant. A previous, smaller fire had occurred due to the same stove. A fire captain warned the tenant to discontinue using the stove until it was repaired, but did not report the incident to the Commissioner of Public Safety. The landlord was informed of the first fire, but not of the fire captain’s warning. The city took no further action regarding the heater. A subsequent fire caused significant damage, prompting the lawsuit.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs sued the City of Amsterdam and the building owner, alleging negligence and violation of the Multiple Residence Law. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, citing a previous case, Rivera v. City of Amsterdam, which arose from the same fire. The plaintiffs then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the City of Amsterdam owed a duty to the plaintiffs to enforce the Multiple Residence Law regarding the defective oil heater.
2. Whether the City’s failure to enforce the law constituted negligence that could give rise to liability for the fire damage.

Holding

1. No, because the duty to provide fire protection is a general duty owed to the public, not a specific duty to individual residents unless a special relationship exists.
2. No, because a municipality is not liable for failing to supply general fire protection absent a special duty to the plaintiff.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while the waiver of governmental immunity in 1929 made municipalities answerable for the wrongs of their officers and employees, it did not create new duties. The court emphasized that a municipality’s duty to provide fire protection is a general one owed to the public as a whole, not a specific duty owed to individual property owners. Quoting Steitz v. City of Beacon, the court stated that liability arises from a statute