## Facts

- Carmen Valdez obtained an order of protection against her former boyfriend, Felix Perez, and delivered it to the NYPD Domestic Violence Unit for service.
- An officer later confirmed to Valdez that Perez had been served with the order.
- About a week later, Perez called Valdez and threatened to kill her.
- Valdez left home with her two children and called the Domestic Violence Unit; she testified an officer instructed her to return home and said Perez would be arrested “immediately.”
- Valdez returned to her apartment and stayed there that night without hearing further from the police and without calling back to confirm any arrest.
- The next day, more than 24 hours after the call, Perez confronted Valdez in her building hallway and shot her multiple times, causing serious permanent injuries; Perez then killed himself.
- Valdez and her children sued the City of New York and police officers for negligent failure to protect after the alleged assurance of immediate arrest.

## Issues

1. Whether the City owed Valdez a special duty of care based on a “special relationship” arising from police promises or actions.
2. Whether Valdez’s continued reliance on an alleged promise of “immediate” arrest, made more than 24 hours earlier with no follow-up, was justifiable as a matter of law.
3. Whether the case could be resolved without reaching governmental function immunity for policing decisions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division order that reversed the jury verdict and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held Valdez failed to prove a special relationship because her reliance on the alleged promise of immediate arrest was not justifiable as a matter of law.
- The court assumed arguendo that the other special-relationship elements could be satisfied but found the reliance element dispositive.
- The court did not decide governmental function immunity because the absence of a special relationship required dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality generally is not liable in tort for failure to provide police protection absent a special relationship creating a duty to a particular person beyond the duty owed to the public.
- A special relationship requires proof of: (1) municipal assumption of an affirmative duty through promises or actions, (2) knowledge that inaction could lead to harm, (3) direct contact with the injured party, and (4) the injured party’s justifiable reliance.
- Justifiable reliance is required to limit municipal liability and demands an objectively reasonable, detrimental change in position based on the municipal undertaking.
- Reliance on a vague assurance of “immediate” action may be unjustifiable when substantial time passes without confirmation or protective action and the plaintiff does not verify the promised response.

## Conclusion

The court held that, despite an alleged police assurance that an abuser would be arrested “immediately,” the City owed no special duty because it was not objectively reasonable for Valdez to continue relying on that assurance more than a day later without any confirmation or police action, requiring dismissal of the negligence claims.


Valdez v. City of New York, 18 N.Y.3d 69, 960 N.E.2d 356 (N.Y. 2011)