Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff was assaulted in a store located in the Staten Island Mall where she was employed. She subsequently commenced this action against the appellant, who owned the mall, and the City of New York (hereinafter the City). With respect to the City, she alleged that the police failed to protect her from the perpetrator who had previously threatened her. The appellant asserted a cross claim against the City.
A municipality may not be held liable for failure to provide police protection unless a special relationship existed between the municipality and the injured party (see, Mastroianni v. County of Suffolk, 91 N.Y.2d 198). In this case, the Supreme Court properly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the police assumed a duty to act on the plaintiff's behalf, one of the required elements of a special relationship. Further, there is no evidence that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on any assurances of protection (see, Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 261; Sostre v. City of N Y Hous. Auth., 150 A.D.2d 766). In the absence of a special relationship, the City cannot be held liable to the plaintiff and the court properly dismissed the appellant's cross claim (see, Cracas v. Zisko, 204 A.D.2d 382, 383-384).
O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.