Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

JAY S. SHINDER, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No. 61498-A.)

MEMORANDUM.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the claim dismissed.

The claim essentially seeks judicial review of the allocation of police resources. The absence of a "special duty" owed to claimant by the State precludes his recovery (see Napolitano v County of Suffolk, 61 N.Y.2d 863; Evers v Westerberg, 32 N.Y.2d 684). Nor was such a "special duty" created by the officers' assumption of a duty when they earlier attempted to remove the bull from the roadway, as there is no basis for finding that claimant relied on these efforts to his detriment (cf. De Long v County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296; Florence v Goldberg, 44 N.Y.2d 189).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and KAYE concur in memorandum; Judge SIMONS concurs on constraint of Napolitano v County of Suffolk ( 61 N.Y.2d 863).

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SHINDER v. STATE OF NEW YORK
(Jun 29, 1984)