Himes v. County of Chautauqua

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and County of Chautauqua’s motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have denied defendant County of Chautauqua’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s complaint must be liberally construed, with every allegation taken as true, to determine whether it pleads a legally cognizable claim (see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268 , 275; Burlew v American Mut. Ins. Co., 99 AD2d 11 ,15, affd 63 NY2d 412 ; Pietropaoli Trucking v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 100 AD2d 680 ). The complaint states that defendant County of Chautauqua breached its duty in negligently failing to place Veronica Himes in an appropriate non-secure detention facility prior to the order of disposition (see, Family Ct Act § 739; County Law § 218-a). The complaint thus states a cognizable cause of action (see, Blanca C. v County of Nassau, 65 NY2d 712 ; Sinkler v County of Monroe, 127 AD2d 1006 ; Harris v State of New York, 117 AD2d 298 , 302-303;