CUFFY V. CITY OF NEW YORK 505 N.E.2d 937 (1987) CASE BRIEF

CUFFY V. CITY OF NEW YORK

505 N.E.2d 937 (1987)

NATURE OF THE CASE: New York (D) sought review of a decision by the Appellate Division that affirmed a judgment in favor of Cuffy (Ps), a father, a mother, and their son, in their action alleging that the police breached a special duty to protect them.

FACTS: In this case, there was proof of a promise of protection made by an agent of the City, but, for a variety of reasons, the reliance element was not established by any of these three plaintiffs. Accordingly, we now reverse the order appealed from and hold that the complaint against the City should have been dismissed. Ps were involved in a landlord tenant dispute with the Aitkinses. They had a history of repeated confrontation and police intervention. The night immediately preceding the incident, Aitkins physically attacked Eleanor Cuffy, tearing her blouse and bruising her eye. An officer came to the house once again to investigate, but declined to take any specific action because, in his judgment, the offense was merely a matter of 'harassment' between landlord and tenant and an arrest was not warranted. P, who had been to see the police four or five times before, went to the local precinct with a neighbor at about 11:00 that night to ask for protection for his family. P spoke with Lieutenant Moretti, the desk officer, and told him that the Aitkinses had threatened his family's safety. P specifically told Moretti that he intended to move his family out of its upper floor apartment immediately if an arrest was not made. Moretti told P that he should not worry and that an arrest would be made or something else would be done about the situation 'first thing in the morning.' P then went back to his family and instructed his wife to unpack the family's valises, thereby signifying his intention to remain in the house. The police did not undertake any further action in response to Ps complaint. P's son Ralston, who did not live with his parents, came to their house for a visit. Joel Aitkins accosted him and the two men had an altercation, which culminated in Ralston's being struck with a baseball bat. Eleanor rushed to Ralston's rescue. Barbara Aitkins then joined in the attack, slashing at both Eleanor and Cyril with a knife. P, who had come home from work at about 6:30 and then gone to his neighbor's house, arrived at the scene while the fight was in progress, but was not in time to avert the harm. All three Ps had sustained severe injuries. Ps sued D alleging that the police had a 'special duty' to protect them because of the promise that Lieutenant Moretti had made on the night preceding the incident. Ps got the verdict for substantial damages. D appealed to the Appellate Division, which unanimously affirmed the judgment, without opinion. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner