## Facts

- Married women alleged they and similarly situated victims were denied legally required protection from abusive husbands by police and related municipal actors.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring police to make arrests in appropriate domestic assault circumstances and requiring Family Court-related personnel to facilitate prompt access to orders of protection.
- The complaint, supported by affidavits describing numerous incidents, alleged police responding to domestic assaults refused to act or arrest despite clear evidence, based solely on the marital relationship between victim and assailant, and directed victims to seek Family Court orders instead.
- Plaintiffs further alleged that Family Court information-desk and clerical practices delayed or obstructed prompt petitioning for orders of protection by failing to advise of immediate petition rights, assigning conferences weeks or months away, and restricting timely access to a judge.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing (among other points) lack of a cognizable claim and nonjusticiability because the requested relief would intrude on executive and administrative discretion.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of a widespread policy of refusing to enforce assault laws when the assailant is the victim’s husband stated a claim for unlawful discriminatory nonenforcement violating constitutional and statutory rights.
2. Whether the requested declaratory and injunctive relief presented a justiciable controversy or an impermissible attempt to subject police and court-related administration to judicial supervision.
3. Whether dismissal or summary judgment was warranted at the pleading stage given the allegations of systemic practices affecting a defined class of victims.

## Decision

- The court held the complaint, on its face, stated a basis for relief founded on discriminatory enforcement (including nonenforcement) of generally applicable laws by public officials.
- The court rejected the argument that the case was nonjusticiable merely because it implicated agency policy; the allegations described a concrete controversy concerning claimed violations of legal duties and rights.
- The court denied the defendants’ dispositive motions (including dismissal and summary judgment), allowing plaintiffs to proceed to attempt to prove the alleged systemic discriminatory practices and to seek equitable relief.

## Legal Principles

- Selective nonenforcement of generally applicable laws, if undertaken as a policy directed at a defined class (here, victims of spousal assault), can state a claim for unlawful discrimination and denial of equal protection.
- Courts may adjudicate claims alleging widespread, deliberate policies that deny legal protection and may order general injunctive relief to require compliance with statutory and constitutional obligations, without undertaking day-to-day management of agencies.
- A request for structural or programmatic relief is not automatically barred as a “political question” where plaintiffs plead concrete, ongoing deprivations of legal rights and duties capable of judicial determination.

## Conclusion

The trial court treated the allegations of systematic refusal to protect victims of domestic violence as a cognizable and justiciable claim of discriminatory nonenforcement, and it permitted the action to proceed by denying dismissal and summary judgment so plaintiffs could attempt to prove entitlement to equitable relief.


Bruno v. Codd, 396 N.Y.S.2d 974 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1977)