## Facts

- Family Court issued a permanent order of protection directing Adell P. Swiggett’s estranged husband to stay away from her and the residence; a copy was sent to the local police precinct.
- The husband was previously arrested for violating the order.
- Swiggett later called 911 reporting her husband had entered her home and thrown furniture into the yard, in violation of the order.
- Officers met Swiggett, returned with her to the residence, observed furniture on the lawn, and were shown the order of protection; Swiggett was upset and asked that her husband be “locked up.”
- Officers located the husband nearby; he denied wrongdoing and there were no eyewitnesses.
- A supervisor advised the officers they could not arrest unless they witnessed an active violation; officers did not arrest, warned the husband, and told Swiggett they would do what they could.
- Officers remained nearby briefly, then left the immediate area; within minutes Swiggett was fatally stabbed, and the husband was found covered in blood.
- The estate sued the County for negligence and wrongful death, alleging failure to protect and failure to arrest or remove the husband after notice of the violation.

## Issues

1. Whether the police owed Swiggett a special duty of care, permitting municipal liability for failure to provide protection after a reported violation of an order of protection.
2. Whether the record raised triable issues on the elements of a special relationship and breach, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and denied the County summary judgment.
- The court held the evidence supported finding a special relationship between the police and Swiggett under the special-duty doctrine.
- The court held triable issues existed as to whether the police breached a duty of reasonable care within the scope of that relationship.
- The complaint was reinstated for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is generally not liable for failure to provide police protection unless a plaintiff proves a “special relationship” creating a duty to the injured party, not merely the public at large.
- The special-relationship test requires: (1) an affirmative undertaking by the municipality through promises or actions to act for the plaintiff, (2) knowledge that inaction could lead to harm, (3) direct contact with the plaintiff, and (4) the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the undertaking.
- Police response to a specific domestic-violence emergency involving a known order of protection, coupled with assurances and on-scene conduct directed to the complainant’s safety, can satisfy the special-relationship elements and preclude summary judgment.
- Where competing inferences exist on duty, reliance, and reasonable care in a special-duty setting, those issues are generally for the factfinder.

## Conclusion

Because the police had direct notice of the protective order and engaged in conduct and assurances that could be found to have induced reliance during an immediate domestic-violence crisis, the county was not entitled to summary judgment; the negligence action could proceed on a special-relationship theory.


Mastroianni v. County of Suffolk, 91 N.Y.2d 198, 691 N.E.2d 613 (N.Y. 1997)