In Lauer v. City of New York et al., 95 N.Y. 2d 95 (2000), the intermediate appellate court had held that the City owed a ministerial duty to the injured party and, in addition, that there was a special duty running from the City to the plaintiff (258 AD2d 92, 693 NYS2d 167 [1999]). The appellate court stated that the special duty analysis was not strictly necessary, because "the failed mu-nicipal service complained of was ministerial rather than discretionary" (id at 102). The Court of Appeals reversal, therefore, is logically read as rejecting both of the lower courts' holdings, ruling first that there could be no liability for ministerial negligence, and second that there was no special relationship or special duty between the parties (95 NY2d at 102 ["Nor do we find any duty to plaintiff derived from a 'special relationship' with him"]). The discussion of section 557 of the New York City Charter in the first half of the decision could be giving consideration to the statute as setting the standard of care or shaping the scope of the common-law duty. The Court explained the distinction between discretionary acts (for which there is no liability) and ministerial acts (for which there could be liability). However, the Court concluded that even if the acts were ministerial, they are only actionable if they were otherwise "tortious" and there had to be a specific duty running directly to the plaintiff, not a duty owed gen-erally to the public. In the absence of that, or of a "special relationship" between the parties (see, Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260), there can be no liability. Chief Judge Kaye asserted the "undisputed propositions" that municipalities long ago surrendered the com-mon law tort immunity for the negligence of their employees. However, a distinction was drawn for those acts which are discretionary and those which are ministerial. A public employee's acts which are discretionary, involving the exercise of reasoned judgment, may not result in liability for the municipality, regardless of the degree of the public employee's negligence. By contrast, ministerial acts of public employees, those requiring adherence to governing rules, may subject the government to such liability. (Id.)