Marcia M. Halpin v Town of Lancaster

Halpin v Town of Lancaster 2006 NY Slip Op 06433 [7 NY3d 827] September 14, 2006 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, November 08, 2006

[*1] Marcia M. Halpin, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Samantha Halpin and Another, Infants, Appellant,
v
Town of Lancaster, Respondent.

Decided September 14, 2006

Halpin v Town of Lancaster, 24 AD3d 1176, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Magavern, Magavern & Grimm, L.L.P., Buffalo (Aven Rennie of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen & Lombardo, P.C., Buffalo (Christopher M. Duggan of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. The courts below properly concluded that plaintiff [*2]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.