Opinion
May 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
It is well settled that public entities are immune from tort claims arising out of the performance of their governmental functions, including police protection, unless the injured party establishes a special relationship with the entity, which creates a specific duty to protect that individual, and the individual justifiably relies upon the performance of that duty (see, Cuffy v City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255; Miller v State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506; Pugliese v City of New York, 115 A.D.2d 465, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 608).
In this case the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to the elements necessary to sustain a finding of a special duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a future assault by the grandmother of his daughter. Specifically, the record contains no indication that the New York City Housing Authority police affirmatively represented that it would afford the plaintiff continual police protection, nor does the record establish that the plaintiff relied, to his detriment, upon any assurances that he would be protected (see, Meister v City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 448; Bain v City of Rochester, 115 A.D.2d 957, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 606; Satiro v City of New Rochelle, 102 A.D.2d 821, affd 64 N.Y.2d 614; Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 101 A.D.2d 498, affd 64 N.Y.2d 667). Absent such a special relationship, the defendant cannot be cast in damages for the injuries ultimately sustained by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.