Opinion ID: 541068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Direct Contact With Rotterdam's Agents

Text: 25 Defendants concede that there was proof of direct contact between the Rotterdam Police Department and Ms. Raucci. They assert, however, that there was no contact between Chad and the police department and that, in fact, there was no threat against Chad's life by Mr. Raucci. They distinguish this case from Sorichetti, noting that the New York City Police Department there was aware of Sorichetti's threats against both the mother and the child, while in the case at bar there was no indication that Chad's life was ever in danger. 26 One reason for the direct contact requirement is to provide a rational limit on the number of citizens to whom the municipality's 'special duty' extends. Cuffy, 69 N.Y.2d at 261, 505 N.E.2d at 940, 513 N.Y.S.2d at 375. [T]he proper application of the 'direct contact' requirement depends on the peculiar circumstances of each case, all of which must be considered in light of the policies underlying the narrow 'special duty' doctrine. Id. at 262, 505 N.E.2d at 941, 513 N.Y.S.2d at 376. 27 Sorichetti deviated from the direct contact element to allow an injured child to recover though only her mother contacted the New York City Police Department. Sorichetti, 65 N.Y.2d at 469, 482 N.E.2d at 75, 492 N.Y.S.2d at 596; Cuffy, 69 N.Y.2d at 261-62, 505 N.E.2d at 940-41, 513 N.Y.S.2d at 375. The New York Court of Appeals in Sorichetti found that orders of protection issued for the mother protected the equally threatened daughter in her custody. Sorichetti, 65 N.Y.2d at 469, 482 N.E.2d at 75, 492 N.Y.S.2d at 596. In later cases, that court has explained that in Sorichetti it was applying the direct contact requirement with some flexibility by using the mother's contact as a substitute for the child's direct contact with the police, Kircher, 74 N.Y.2d at 257, 543 N.E.2d at 446, 544 N.Y.S.2d at 998, and by recognizing the close relationship between the interests of the mother and those of the child, Cuffy, 69 N.Y.2d at 261, 505 N.E.2d at 941, 513 N.Y.S.2d at 375. The outstanding judicial order of protection in Sorichetti signifi[ed] the municipality's prior involvement in the domestic turmoil that ultimately led to the infant's injuries, thus providing a justification for relaxing the direct contact requirement. Kircher, 74 N.Y.2d at 257-58, 543 N.E.2d at 446-47, 544 N.Y.S.2d at 998-99. The court in Cuffy held that the injured mother and son had sufficient contact with the police to create a special relationship because the father, who actually talked to the police about harassment by his tenants, was concerned about his family's safety when he contacted the police. Cuffy, 69 N.Y.2d at 262, 505 N.E.2d at 941, 513 N.Y.S.2d at 376. 28 In this case, Ms. Raucci initially approached the Rotterdam Police Department with Chad. She obtained an order of protection which, under Sorichetti and its progeny, extended to her children insofar as her contacts with the Rotterdam Police Department were concerned. Officers of the Rotterdam Police Department had seen Chad and knew who he was. They also knew from the tapes and from observing Mr. Raucci in the police station on June 28 that Chad was the object of a custody dispute between the couple. The district court did not err in determining that the element of direct contact was established as to Chad as well as his mother. 3 29