## Facts

- Josephine Sorichetti had a history of domestic violence by her husband, Frank Sorichetti, including assaults and threats to kill her and harm their child, Dina.
- Josephine obtained Family Court orders of protection directing Frank to refrain from threatening or assaulting Josephine and Dina and stating the order constituted authority for a peace officer to arrest for violations.
- Family Court granted Frank visitation with Dina, structured so exchanges occurred at a police precinct.
- During a visitation weekend, Josephine brought Dina to the precinct as required; Frank became threatening, including threats to kill Josephine and harm Dina.
- Josephine reported the threats to precinct officers, presented the active order of protection, described Frank’s violent history, and sought police help.
- When Frank failed to return Dina on time, Josephine returned to the precinct distraught and again asked for assistance; officers told her to wait and later to go home after taking her phone number.
- Police did not arrest Frank, and plaintiffs alleged police did not take timely steps to locate Dina or otherwise prevent harm after being informed of a likely protection-order violation and immediate threats.
- Frank brutally assaulted Dina, causing severe injuries.
- A jury found the City liable for negligence and awarded damages; the intermediate appellate court reduced Dina’s award by stipulation while leaving liability intact.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality owed Dina a duty of care to provide police protection, notwithstanding the general rule that police duties are owed to the public at large.
2. Whether a “special relationship” arose from the protection order, the police department’s knowledge of Frank’s violent history and immediate threats, direct contact with Josephine, and reliance on police action.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the City’s liability, holding that a special relationship existed between the City and Dina.
- The Court held that the protection order, combined with police knowledge of the assailant’s prior violence and current threats, direct dealings with Josephine at the precinct, and justifiable reliance, created a specific municipal duty to use reasonable care to protect Dina.
- Because a duty existed, the City’s alleged failure to take reasonable protective action could support negligence liability.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is generally not liable in negligence for failing to provide police protection absent a special relationship creating a duty to a particular person rather than the public.
- A special relationship may be shown by: (1) an assumption of an affirmative duty by promise or action, (2) knowledge that inaction could lead to harm, (3) direct contact with the injured party (or guardian), and (4) justifiable reliance.
- A judicial order of protection that identifies specific protected persons and authorizes police enforcement can narrow the class of potential victims and support finding a special relationship when coupled with police knowledge of danger and direct dealings.
- Where a special relationship exists, the municipality must exercise reasonable care in responding to known, specific threats within the scope of the undertaking.

## Conclusion

The court held the City could be liable for negligence because the protection order, the police’s awareness of the father’s violent history and immediate threats, direct contact at the precinct, and reliance on police action created a special relationship imposing a duty to use reasonable care to protect Dina from foreseeable harm.


Sorichetti v. City of New York, 65 N.Y.2d 461 (N.Y. 1985)