## Facts

- Jandy Coleson experienced years of domestic violence by her husband, Samuel Coleson, and obtained multiple orders of protection; police had repeatedly been involved.
- On June 23, 2004, Samuel attempted to force entry into the building, threatened to kill Jandy, and carried a screwdriver; she called the NYPD.
- Police arrived after Samuel fled, searched with Jandy’s help, and apprehended him later that morning.
- At a precinct, an officer told Jandy that Samuel had been arrested, would be in prison for a while, and that she would be given protection; police then escorted Jandy and her son to Safe Horizon for assistance.
- That night, Officer Reyes called Jandy for about two hours and stated Samuel was before a judge, would be sentenced, that “everything was okay,” and that Reyes would keep in contact.
- Samuel was not kept in custody. Two days later, near the child’s school, Samuel approached Jandy and stabbed her in the back with a knife; she survived.
- During the attack, a nearby employee hid the child in a closet.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs raised a triable issue that the City, through its officers’ promises and conduct, formed a “special relationship” creating an affirmative duty to protect Jandy from Samuel’s criminal attack.
2. Whether the child could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander without evidence of contemporaneous, sensory perception of the stabbing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals modified the order below.
- It held summary judgment was improper on Jandy’s negligence claim because the record raised triable issues of fact on the existence of a special relationship with the police.
- It held summary judgment was proper dismissing the child’s bystander NIED claim because he did not contemporaneously perceive the stabbing.

## Legal Principles

- When a municipality performs governmental functions (including police protection), it is not liable for failure to protect the public absent a special relationship with the injured party.
- A special relationship based on direct contact requires evidence supporting: (1) an affirmative undertaking by promise or action, (2) municipal knowledge that inaction could lead to harm, (3) direct contact, and (4) justifiable reliance by the injured party.
- On summary judgment, whether officers’ assurances and follow-up conduct created an affirmative undertaking and justifiable reliance may present fact questions for a jury.
- Bystander NIED recovery requires, at minimum, the plaintiff’s immediate, sensory perception of serious injury or death to a close family member; proximity alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the mother’s negligence claim to proceed because police assurances and continued involvement could support a finding of a special duty and reliance, but it barred the child’s bystander emotional-distress claim because the record did not show he perceived the stabbing as it occurred.


Coleson v. City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 476 (N.Y. 2014)