Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffnegligencemotion
plaintiffnegligenceappealmotion

Related Cases

Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 42 A.3d 1273
View Case »
Mentzer v. W.U. Tel. Co., 93 Iowa 752, 62 N.W. 1, 28 L.R.A. 72, 57 Am.St.Rep. 294
View Case »
Beneke v. Smith, Slip Copy, 2015 WL 2137134 (Table)
View Case »
Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 700 N.E.2d 303, 677 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 07541
View Case »
Bachtel v. TASER Intern., Inc., 747 F.3d 965, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,370
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Coleson v. City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 476, 24 N.E.3d 1074, 999 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08213

Facts

Jandy Coleson suffered abuse from her husband, Samuel Coleson, leading her to obtain multiple orders of protection. After an incident where Coleson threatened her, he was arrested, and police assured her of protection. However, two days later, Coleson stabbed her while their son witnessed part of the attack from a broom closet. Coleson and her son subsequently filed a negligence action against the City of New York and the NYPD, claiming the police failed to protect them.

Commencing in the year 2000, plaintiff Jandy Coleson suffered both verbal and physical abuse at the hands of her husband Samuel Coleson.

Issue

Did the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs raise a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of a special relationship between the plaintiffs and the City, and was the son in the zone of danger for the purposes of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim?

Did the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs raise a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of a special relationship between the plaintiffs and the City, and was the son in the zone of danger for the purposes of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim?

Rule

A municipality may be liable for negligence if a special relationship exists, which can be established through promises or actions that create justifiable reliance by the injured party.

A municipality may be liable for negligence if a special relationship exists, which can be established through promises or actions that create justifiable reliance by the injured party.

Analysis

The court applied the Cuffy factors to determine if a special relationship existed. It concluded that the police officers' assurances to Jandy Coleson could lead a jury to find that she justifiably relied on their promises of protection. However, the court also found that the son did not witness the stabbing and was not in the zone of danger, as he was locked in a closet during the incident.

Applying the Cuffy factors here, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed.

Conclusion

The court reversed the Appellate Division's order regarding the negligence claim, allowing it to proceed, but affirmed the dismissal of the son's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified in accordance with this opinion, without costs, the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of issues raised but not determined on appeal to that court, and as so modified, affirmed and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

Who won?

The City of New York prevailed in part, as the court affirmed the dismissal of the son's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress due to his lack of being in the zone of danger.

The City of New York prevailed in part, as the court affirmed the dismissal of the son's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress due to his lack of being in the zone of danger.

You must be