You are here: / / 1983 Action Against Department of Corrections Is Not Brought in the Court...
, , ,

1983 Action Against Department of Corrections Is Not Brought in the Court of Claims

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice Garry, reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a 1983 action against employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision challenging a urinalysis report:

Supreme Court found that it lacked jurisdiction based upon Correction Law § 24, which requires that actions alleging negligence by state correction officers be commenced in the Court of Claims; however, it has been established that this provision may not be applied to bar actions brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 … . Carrington v Moore, 513818, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

You might also like
THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNTY COURT’S DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO CLAIMANT SINCE THE ACCIDENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT WAS NOT PAID COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE ENTIRE TIME SINCE THE ACCIDENT.
THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
THE NEW JERSEY ORDER AND JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE NEW YORK FORECLOSURE ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ISSUING A RULING BEFORE FATHER COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED THE PARTIES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
People v Rudolph (Requiring Sentencing Court to Consider Youthful Offender Status for All Eligible Defendants) Applied Retroactively to 2008 Conviction (on Direct Appeal)
ABSENT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A MANUAL BODY-CAVITY SEARCH MUST BE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY A WARRANT; THE DRUGS REMOVED FROM DEFENDANT’S BODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Child Care Agency Could Be Found Negligent for Failure to Remove Child from... Destruction of Video that May Have Been Relevant to the Defense Required Adverse...