Practice point: The plaintiff commenced this action alleging negligence after he was
bitten by a dog employed by the canine unit of the defendant's police department. The
plaintiff was a school custodian who was at the scene of the incident because the police needed him to to open certain doors in order to
conduct a search.
In denying summary judgment, the court noted that the professional judgment rule insulates a municipality from
liability for its employees' performance of their duties where the conduct involves the exercise of professional judgment, such as electing
one among many acceptable methods of carrying out tasks or making
tactical decisions. However, the immunity does
not extend to situations where an employee-police officer violates
acceptable police practice. The court found a question of fact as to whether the dog-handler's conduct was consistent with
acceptable police practice.
Student note: In the absence of a prima facie showing, summary judgment was denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers.
Case: Newsome v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 05805 (2d Dept. 2013).
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Tenure by estoppel
