Sorichetti v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsMunicipal LiabilityNegligencePolice Protectionspecial relationshipmunicipal liabilitypolice protectionorder of protection

Facts

Josephine Sorichetti had obtained a Family Court order of protection against her violent husband, Frank, which also gave him weekend visitation with their daughter Dina and stated that presentation of the order authorized police to take into custody a person charged with violating it and to aid in securing the protection intended. After Frank threatened Josephine and Dina at the precinct during a visitation exchange, Josephine immediately reported the threat to police, showed them the order, and asked them to arrest Frank and retrieve Dina; police declined to act. The next evening, when Frank failed to return Dina on time, Josephine repeatedly returned to the precinct, again showed the order, described Frank's violent history and threats, and pleaded for help, while an officer familiar with Frank described him to the supervising lieutenant as a very violent man and recommended sending a patrol car. Police repeatedly told Josephine to wait and took no action before Frank brutally attacked Dina between about 6:55 and 7:00 p.m., causing permanent injuries.

Issue

Whether the City could be held liable for failure to provide police protection because a special relationship existed between the municipality and Dina Sorichetti. More specifically, whether the order of protection, combined with police knowledge of Frank's violent propensities and their response to Josephine's pleas for help, created a special duty enforceable in negligence.

Rule

A municipality cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from a failure to provide adequate police protection absent a special relationship between the municipality and the injured party. Presentation of an order of protection together with an allegation of its violation does not by itself create municipal liability or mandate arrest, but it obligates police to respond, investigate, and take appropriate action, and the reasonableness of that response may be reviewed in negligence when, in the particular circumstances, a special relationship exists. Such a special relationship may arise from the order of protection, police knowledge of the specific perpetrator's violent history and the danger to the victim, police conduct indicating assistance will be provided, and the victim's reasonable expectation of protection.

🔒

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 Buffalo, Nina Alvarez obtained a family court order directing her former husband, Leo Mercer, to stay away from her and their son, Mateo. When Leo failed to return Mateo after scheduled visitation, Nina brought the order to the precinct, reported Leo's earlier threats to harm the child, and an officer who had previously arrested Leo for violent domestic incidents told the desk sergeant that Leo was dangerous; police told Nina to wait because they would send a car shortly, but they did nothing before Leo injured Mateo an hour later.

If Mateo sues the city for negligence, which is the strongest basis for finding a duty owed to him?

Explanation. A municipality is generally not liable for failure to provide police protection absent a special relationship. Under the majority opinion, that relationship may arise where an order of protection is coupled with police knowledge of the specific perpetrator's violent history and the danger to the victim, police conduct suggesting assistance will be provided, and a reasonable expectation of protection. The order alone does not mandate arrest, and there is no general duty to the public at large. (Derived from Sorichetti v. City of New York (n.d.).)