Home > Journals > LAWREVIEW > Vol. 89 > No. 4 (2015)
This Note contends that the Court of Appeals erred in narrowing the scope of municipal tort liability in Valdez. Focus is on the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of its regressive analysis in McLean v. City of New York and mistaken reliance upon its earlier decision in Cuffy v. City of New York. To illustrate the Court of Appeals’ unwavering adherence to Valdez, this Note examines the court’s decisions in Metz v. State and Coleson v. City of New York. Part I discusses the history and purpose of sovereign immunity from tort liability, New York’s waiver thereof, and court-imposed limitations upon that waiver. Part II examines Valdez and the lasting repercussions of the decision on the area of municipal tort liability. Part III suggests the necessity of legislative action, through which the injustice perpetuated by the Court of Appeals can be comprehensively rectified.