## Facts

- Linda Riss was repeatedly threatened over more than six months by Burton Pugach, a rejected suitor, who warned he would seriously injure or kill her.
- Riss repeatedly contacted the New York City Police Department seeking protection based on specific, escalating threats.
- After Riss became engaged to another man, Pugach called during an engagement celebration and told her it was her “last chance”; she promptly reported this threat to the police.
- The police did not provide effective protection or take measures that prevented the threatened harm.
- The next day, an assailant hired by Pugach threw lye in Riss’s face, blinding her in one eye, severely injuring the other, and permanently disfiguring her.
- The City provided police protection only after the attack.
- Riss sued the City, alleging negligent failure to provide police protection against a known, specific danger.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may be held liable in tort for failing to provide police protection to an identified person who reports specific, repeated threats and is later harmed by a third party.
2. Whether the City’s police conduct created a “special duty” to Riss that would support negligence liability beyond the general duty owed to the public.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the City owed no actionable duty to provide Riss with special police protection on these facts.
- The court declined to recognize a new category of municipal tort liability for failures of police protection absent legislative authorization.
- The court concluded no special duty or special relationship arose between the police and Riss sufficient to impose liability.

## Legal Principles

- Police protection is a governmental function owed to the public at large; absent a statute or a special duty, a municipality is not liable in negligence for failing to protect an individual from criminal acts of third parties.
- A “special duty” requires governmental conduct that meaningfully distinguishes the claimant from the general public (for example, a specific undertaking or assurance inducing reliance, or municipal conduct that creates or increases the risk), and it is not established solely by foreseeability and repeated requests for help.
- Decisions about deployment of limited police resources are primarily legislative and executive; courts will not impose tort liability that effectively reallocates priorities and budgets through after-the-fact adjudication.
- Expansion of municipal liability for alleged failures of police protection, if warranted, is for the legislature to define, including the scope of duty and limits on liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that, despite the foreseeability and specificity of the threats to Riss, the City was not subject to tort liability for failing to prevent a third-party attack because police protection is a public duty and no statute or special relationship created an enforceable duty owed to her individually.


Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)