Case ID: ny-2d_62/html/0945-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jay S. Shinder, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.
    (Claim No. 61498-A.)
    Argued June 6, 1984;
    decided June 29, 1984
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Vernon Stuart and Peter Schiff of counsel), for appellant.
    
      James D. Featherstonhaugh for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

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 NY2d 863; Evers v Westerberg, 32 NY2d 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 NY2d 296; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer and Kaye concur in memorandum; Judge Simons concurs on constraint of Napolitano v County of Suffolk (61 NY2d 863).

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