Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David KROMER, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Alicia Humphreys, also known as Alicia M. Humphreys, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ONONDAGA, Onondaga County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Kevin E. Walsh, Detective J.A. Mehlek, Deputy J.S. Cerankowski, Lt. D.R. Coon, Deputy T. Shelley, Sgt. Craig Castanza, Detective S.M. Price, Lt. J.P. Rinella, Detective Fahey, Deputy R.H. Flanagan, Sgt. Rahrle, Deputy D. Graham, Deputy K.A. Bowles, John Doe I, and John Doe II, (Fictitious Names Used to Identify Names of Captains, Detectives, Lieutenants, Sergeants and Deputy Sheriffs who are at Present Unknown and Employed by the County of Onondaga and the Sheriff's Department) Sued Individually and in his or her Official Capacity, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiff commenced this action as administrator C.T.A. of the estate of his daughter (decedent), who was murdered by her estranged husband. Plaintiff alleged that defendants acted recklessly and negligently in failing to protect decedent after she had reported that, two weeks before the murder, her husband assaulted and raped her. We affirm the order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In our view, defendants established as a matter of law that there was no justifiable reliance on any affirmative undertaking by them and thus that plaintiff failed to establish the special relationship between decedent and defendants necessary for the imposition of liability (see generally Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937). Defendants established that decedent did not contact them during the two-week period between the alleged assault/rape and the murder, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether any acts of defendants lulled decedent “into a false sense of security, induced [her] to either relax [her] own vigilance or forego other viable avenues of protection, and thereby placed [decedent] in a worse position than [she] would have been in had defendant[s] never assumed the underlying duty” (Finch v. County of Saratoga, 305 A.D.2d 771, 773, 758 N.Y.S.2d 220; see Farley v. County of Erie, 16 A.D.3d 1134, 1136, 791 N.Y.S.2d 251, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 711, 806 N.Y.S.2d 161, 840 N.E.2d 130).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 03, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)