Opinion
December 2, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).
Appeal from the order dismissed (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248).
Judgment affirmed.
Respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.
"Public entities remain immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of their governmental functions, including police protection, unless the injured person establishes a special relationship with the entity, which would create a specific duty to protect that individual, and the individual relied on the performance of that duty (see De Long v County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 304; Florence v Goldberg, 44 N.Y.2d 189, 195; Riss v City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 583; Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 N.Y.2d 134, 139; Bass v City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 407, 413, affd. no opn. 32 N.Y.2d 894)" (Miller v State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 510).
Clearly, the specific act or omission for which plaintiff seeks to hold defendants accountable, failure to provide effective security forces on a city university campus, involves the performance of what is essentially a governmental function (see, Education Law § 6203; accord, Vitale v City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 861). Therefore, absent the existence of a special relationship between defendants and plaintiff, defendants are immune from liability (cf. Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 N.Y.2d 175; Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 N.Y.2d 134, supra).
Plaintiff having failed to allege sufficient facts in evidentiary form to raise a triable issue of fact as to a special relationship between herself and defendants, as well as her reliance on such a relationship, the complaint was properly dismissed (cf. Miller v State of New York, supra; De Long v County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, supra). O'Connor, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.