Shinder v. State

New York Court of Appeals

Shinder v. State

62 N.Y.2d 945

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1984

DocketClaim No. 61498-A

StatusPublished

This text of 62 N.Y.2d 945 (Shinder v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shinder v. State, 62 N.Y.2d 945 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the claim dismissed.

The claim essentially seeks judicial review of the allocation of police resources. The absence of a “special duty” owed to claimant by the State precludes his recovery (see Napolitano v County of Suffolk, 61 NY2d 863; Evers v Westerberg, 32 NY2d 684). Nor was such a “special duty” created by the officers’ assumption of a duty when they earlier attempted to remove the bull from the roadway, as there is no basis for finding that claimant relied on these efforts to his detriment (cf. De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer and Kaye concur in memorandum; Judge Simons concurs on constraint of Napolitano v County of Suffolk (61 NY2d 863).

[947]*947Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the claim dismissed.

The claim essentially seeks judicial review of the allocation of police resources. The absence of a “special duty” owed to claimant by the State precludes his recovery (see Napolitano v County of Suffolk, 61 NY2d 863; Evers v Westerberg, 32 NY2d 684). Nor was such a “special duty” created by the officers’ assumption of a duty when they earlier attempted to remove the bull from the roadway, as there is no basis for finding that claimant relied on these efforts to his detriment (cf. De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer and Kaye concur in memorandum; Judge Simons concurs on constraint of Napolitano v County of Suffolk (61 NY2d 863).

[947]*947Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.Y.2d 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shinder-v-state-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack