Upon the partial collapse of a building adjoining plaintiff's rooftop tennis courts, City officials determined that the most appropriate way of taking down the remaining building walls, consistent with human safety, entailed use of a crane and clamshell bucket. As a consequence, bricks fell on plaintiffs' property causing damages. It is clear that the City officials' determination of the appropriate means to take down the remaining wall, which appeared in danger of imminent collapse, was at least in some measure discretionary, and thus immune from tort liability (see, McCormack v. City of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 808, 811; Mon v. City of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 309, 313; Tango v Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 34, 40). Nor did plaintiffs establish the elements of a special relationship with the City by affidavit alleging assurances made by unnamed City and police officials with respect to the demolition, or otherwise raise a material issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). We have considered appellant's and cross-appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.