You are here: / / SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S...
, ,

SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF, THEREFORE, IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; SHERIFF CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN.

Plaintiff sued the county alleging plaintiff’s decedent was not properly screened and supervised when placed in the Erie County Holding Center where plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide. After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff was allowed to add the Erie County Sheriff as a defendant. The Fourth Department reversed, explaining that the Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the actions of the Sheriff’s Department and is therefore not “united in interest” with the County/Sheriff’s Department:

In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) both claims arose out of [the] same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant[s], and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well” … .

…. [Plaintiff did not satisfy the second prong, i.e., unity of interest. “In [the] context [of this case], unity of interest means that the interest of the parties in the [subject matter] is such that they stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other . . . Although the parties might share a multitude of commonalities, . . . the unity of interest test will not be satisfied unless the parties share precisely the same jural relationship in the action at hand . . . Indeed, unless the original defendant[s] and new [defendant] are vicariously liable for the acts of the other[,] . . . there is no unity of interest between them” … .

Here, defendant County of Erie (County) is not united in interest with the Sheriff inasmuch as the County cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the Sheriff or his deputies … . Nor is defendant Erie County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department) united in interest with the Sheriff for purposes of the relation back doctrine. The Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the deputies employed at the Holding Center … . In addition, the Sheriff’s Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County … , and thus an “action against the Sheriff’s Department is, in effect, an action against the County itself” … . Given that the Sheriff and the County are not united in interest, it follows that the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department are not united in interest, and the court therefore erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add the Sheriff as a party. Johanson v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 09736, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/SHERIFF  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)

You might also like
INFANT PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY A MALE STUDENT ON THE SCHOOL BUS FROM KINDERGARTEN THROUGH SECOND GRADE; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL’S EVIDENCE DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE IN THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, A MUNICIPALITY MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE NEED ONLY SHOW IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION EVEN WHERE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THE MUNICIPALITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; HERE AN ONLINE COMPLAINT DID NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT; EVIDENCE A MUNICIPAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT MUNICIPAL LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).
People’s Failure, at a Reconstruction Hearing, to Prove Defendant Was Present for the Sandoval Hearing Required Reversal and a New Trial
THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI); HERE THERE WERE TWO ASSESSMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES, ONE AT LEVEL TWO AND ONE AT LEVEL THREE; THE LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Evidence Insufficient to Support Criminal Contempt in the First Degree—No Evidence of Intent to Harass (Two Dissenting Justices)
ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT CAN DIRECT MOTHER TO ENGAGE IN COUNSELING, SUBMIT TO DRUG TESTS AND TAKE MEDICATION, FAMILY COURT CAN NOT MAKE THE DIRECTIVES A PREREQUISITE FOR VISITATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS FROM THE 1990’S WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES AND THEREFORE DID NOT MEET THE “MODUS OPERANDI” CRITERIA UNDER MOLINEUX TO PROVE IDENTITY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DUPLICITY IN THE INDICTMENT WAS REMEDIED BY DETAILS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BY DETAILED TRIAL EVIDENCE (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER... JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT (ATTEMPTED MURDER)...