## Facts

- Eleanor and Joseph Cuffy lived in the upper unit of their two-family Bronx home and rented the ground-floor unit to Joel and Barbara Aitkins.
- The Cuffys and the Aitkinses had repeated conflicts requiring police involvement; Eleanor had filed a criminal complaint, and an earlier proceeding directed the parties to avoid contact.
- On July 27, 1981, Joel Aitkins assaulted Eleanor; a responding officer did not make an arrest, treating the incident as tenant-landlord harassment.
- That night, Joseph went to the precinct seeking protection; police allegedly assured him they would handle the situation and would come by the next morning to speak with the tenants and protect the family.
- On July 28, no officers arrived in the morning; Eleanor watched periodically and did not see police come to the home.
- Later that day or evening, further violence occurred: one son was hit with a baseball bat when visiting, and Eleanor and another son were also seriously injured.
- The Cuffys sued the City for negligent failure to provide promised police protection; a jury awarded damages, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs proved a “special relationship” creating a municipal duty to provide police protection beyond the duty owed to the public at large.
2. Whether the plaintiffs established justifiable reliance on the police’s alleged promise of protection sufficient to impose municipal liability.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint against the City.
- The court held that, even assuming a promise of protection, none of the injured plaintiffs proved justifiable reliance on an affirmative municipal undertaking.
- Without justifiable reliance, no special relationship (special duty) arose, and the City was not liable for failure to provide police protection.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality generally is not liable for failure to provide adequate police protection because the duty is owed to the public at large.
- Liability may arise only in a narrow class of cases where a plaintiff proves a special relationship creating a special duty.
- To establish a special relationship for negligent failure to provide police protection, a plaintiff must prove:
  - An assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured party;
  - Knowledge by municipal agents that inaction could lead to harm;
  - Direct contact between municipal agents and the injured party; and
  - The injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking.
- Justifiable reliance supplies the causal link between the municipal undertaking and the injury; lack of knowledge of the promise or conduct showing no continued reliance defeats the claim.

## Conclusion

The court held the City could not be liable for the Cuffys’ injuries because the plaintiffs failed to show justifiable reliance on police assurances, a required element of a special relationship imposing a duty to provide protection.


Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255 (N.Y. 1987)