Halpin v. Town of Lancaster

855 N.E.2d 1169, 7 N.Y.3d 827, 822 N.Y.S.2d 754
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 14, 2006·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with *828 costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. The courts below properly concluded that plaintiff failed to state causes of action for breach of a special duty and breach of a duty voluntarily assumed. Absent proof of a special relationship, police, in dealing with domestic quarrels, “cannot be expected to predict and prevent irrational behavior” (Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 101 AD2d 498, 502 [4th Dept 1984] [op by Hancock, Jr., J.], affd for reasons stated below 64 NY2d 667 [1984]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Halpin v. Town of Lancaster, 855 N.E.2d 1169, 7 N.Y.3d 827, 822 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y. 2006).

855 N.E.2d 1169 (Halpin v. Town of Lancaster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gomez v. NYC Health + Hosps. S./Brooklyn Health
2025 NY Slip Op 51951(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Barnes v. State of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 8564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Hanna v. St. Lawrence County
34 A.D.3d 1146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)