Mastroianni v. County of Suffolk
691 N.E. 2d 613, 668 N.Y.S.2d 542, 91 N.Y.2d 198 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may be held liable for injuries resulting from a failure to provide police protection when a "special relationship" exists, which is established when police have direct contact with a protected individual concerning a violation of an order of protection and the individual justifiably relies on the police's affirmative undertakings to provide protection.
Facts:
- On June 12, 1985, Family Court granted a permanent order of protection against Anthony Swiggett, Mrs. Parker’s estranged husband, prohibiting contact with her and their children and requiring him to remain away from her residence.
- On June 24, 1985, less than two weeks after its issuance, Anthony Swiggett was arrested for violating this order of protection.
- On September 5, 1985, at approximately 9:06 p.m., Mrs. Parker called 911, reporting that Anthony Swiggett had violated the order by entering her residence and throwing her furniture into the yard.
- Suffolk County police officers responded, met Mrs. Parker at her mother's house, and then accompanied her to her residence, where they observed several pieces of furniture strewn about the lawn; Mrs. Parker, described as 'very upset,' presented the order of protection and stated she wanted her husband 'locked up,' expressing fear of him.
- The officers located Anthony Swiggett at a neighbor's house nearby, questioned him, and despite smelling alcohol, did not find him intoxicated; he denied entering the residence or moving furniture, and no one, including Mrs. Parker, had seen him move the furniture.
- Unsure how to proceed without having witnessed the violation 'at the scene of his action,' the officers consulted their supervisor, who advised against arrest based solely on Mrs. Parker's statement.
- The officers informed Mrs. Parker that there was no justification to arrest Swiggett, which caused her to become extremely distressed, crying and pleading for his arrest, and reiterating her fear.
- An officer told Anthony Swiggett that he believed Mrs. Parker and warned him that if they had to return for further problems that night, he would be arrested; the officers remained on the scene for over an hour, watching Mrs. Parker move her furniture back inside, and then investigated an unrelated report across the street before leaving the area for a meal break at 10:46 p.m., without knowing Swiggett's whereabouts.
- At 10:54 p.m., minutes after the officers left, they received a call to return to Mrs. Parker’s residence, where they found her fatally stabbed; Anthony Swiggett was later convicted for her murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action against defendants in Supreme Court (the trial court) to recover damages for decedent’s death.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, finding proof of an affirmative duty to act, knowledge that inaction could lead to harm, and justifiable reliance, as well as questions of fact concerning the reasonableness of the officers' actions.
- Defendants appealed the Supreme Court's denial of summary judgment to the Appellate Division (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order and dismissed the complaint, holding that defendants did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff’s decedent and that the police department's actions were reasonable as a matter of law.
- Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (the highest court of New York).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a special relationship, creating municipal liability for failure to provide police protection, arise when police officers are directly notified of a violation of an existing order of protection, observe evidence of the violation, receive pleas for help from the protected party, and make affirmative assurances and undertakings, thereby raising a question of fact regarding the reasonableness of their actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes, a special relationship, creating municipal liability for failure to provide police protection, did arise from these circumstances, thereby raising a question of fact regarding the reasonableness of the officers' actions. The court recognized that while municipalities generally are not liable for failing to provide police protection, an exception exists when a 'special relationship' is formed. Citing Cuffy v. City of New York, the court outlined four elements for this special relationship: (1) an assumption by the municipality of an affirmative duty to act; (2) knowledge that inaction could lead to harm; (3) direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) the injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking. The court held that the issuance of an order of protection, as in this case, satisfies the first two elements, constituting a legislative and judicial determination that the holder requires protection from a dangerous individual (Sorichetti v. City of New York). The third element, direct contact, was clearly met by the officers' immediate and direct interaction with Mrs. Parker concerning the violation and their verifiable knowledge of Swiggett's violent history. For the fourth element, justifiable reliance, the court considered the totality of the circumstances: the officers’ assurances that they would 'do whatever they could' if further problems arose, their prolonged presence while Mrs. Parker moved her furniture, their continued presence nearby, and Mrs. Parker's prior attempts to seek police intervention for violations of the same order. These affirmative undertakings by the officers, despite their inability to make an immediate arrest, fostered a justifiable reliance on their aid. Therefore, a special relationship was established, and the question of whether the officers' actions were reasonable in securing protection for Mrs. Parker was a factual dispute appropriately reserved for a jury, precluding summary judgment for the defendants.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces the 'special relationship' exception to municipal immunity for failure to provide police protection, particularly in the critical context of domestic violence and protective orders. It establishes that police interaction, even without an immediate arrest, can create a special relationship if it involves affirmative undertakings that induce justifiable reliance. The ruling makes it more challenging for municipalities to secure summary judgment in such cases, ensuring that the reasonableness of police conduct is often subject to jury scrutiny, thus expanding potential avenues for accountability where protective duties are undertaken.
