DeLong v. Erie County

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department · 1982 · Torts

89 A.D.2d 376 (1982)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsmunicipal liabilitypolice protectionspecial dutywrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingmunicipal immunity911 emergency system

Facts

Erie County operated the 911 complaint-writing function and the City of Buffalo handled dispatching in a joint emergency system serving, among other places, the Village of Kenmore. When Amalia DeLong called 911 reporting that a burglar was trying to break into her home and asking police to come right away, the complaint writer recorded the address incorrectly, failed to verify key information, and assured her, "Okay, right away." The dispatcher sent Buffalo police to a nonexistent Buffalo address, then cleared the call as a false address without required follow-up, even though a correct identification of 319 Victoria Boulevard in Kenmore would have allowed immediate contact with Kenmore police. Minutes later DeLong was found bleeding outside her home after a knife attack and died from a fatal neck wound.

Issue

Whether Erie County and the City of Buffalo could be held liable for negligence in handling DeLong's 911 call despite the general rule that municipalities are not liable for failure to provide police protection. More specifically, the question was whether their conduct created a special duty to DeLong, whether negligent performance of that undertaking increased the risk of harm, and whether the negligence was a proximate cause of her death.

Rule

A municipality cannot be held liable in damages for mere failure to provide adequate police protection to the public generally. But when a municipality, by holding out emergency assistance, accepting a particular person's call, and undertaking to act on it, assumes a duty to that person, it must perform the undertaking with reasonable care; liability may follow where the undertaking and its negligent performance expose the person to the risk that materializes and the negligence is a proximate cause of the injury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Rochester, the city promotes 911 as the number to call for immediate police help. Nina Flores calls 911, says a man is trying to force open her back door, gives her address, and the operator responds, "Officers are on the way now," but the operator mistypes the street number and dispatch sends police to the wrong block. Nina stays inside waiting and is assaulted before anyone arrives.

If Nina sues the city for negligence, which is the strongest argument that the city is not protected by the general rule against liability for inadequate police protection?

Explanation. The majority distinguished mere failure to provide police protection from a situation where the municipality undertakes to aid a particular person. Holding out 911, accepting the specific call, assuring immediate assistance, and affirmatively processing the response can create a special duty to that caller. Liability then depends on negligent performance and causation, not on a blanket rule that all 911 mistakes are actionable.