You are here: / / DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER...
,

DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS AND FATHER SUED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his cross claim against the county (seeking a determination that the county is obligated to defend and indemnify him) should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s son was killed in a car accident. Defendant, who was then a county coroner, without permission, took plaintiff’s son’s brain matter for use in training cadaver dogs. There was a question of fact whether the county was obligated to defend the coroner pursuant to the Public Officers Law, which applies to actions within the scope of employment:

A county’s duty to defend an employee “turns on whether [the employee was] acting within the scope of [his or her] employment,” and whether the obligation to defend the employee “was formally adopted by a local governing body” … . In order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Public Officers Law § 18, it was incumbent on defendant to establish the applicability of that section … . Here, the court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant while still finding that there are issues of fact that bear on the applicability of Public Officers Law § 18 to defendant’s claims … . Dunn v County of Niagara, 2018 NY Slip Op 03271, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ‘INDICATED’ CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REPORT AMENDED TO ‘UNFOUNDED’ AND SEALED (FOURTH DEPT).
A DEFENDANT WHO REQUESTS A RESTITUTION HEARING IS ENTITLED TO ONE, EVEN WHERE A HEARING HAD BEEN HELD AFTER DEFENDANT’S FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim
DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Seizure of Claimant’s Computers Pursuant to a Warrant Did Not Give Rise to Conversion, Negligent Misrepresentation and Constitutional Tort Causes of Action—Elements of Those Causes of Action Explained
Only an “Unexcused” Violation of a Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Constitutes Negligence Per Se—Damages May Include Cost of Demolition of a Building Which Has Been Deemed a Safety Hazard
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

WHILE WORKING ON A SIGN AT EYE LEVEL PLAINTIFF SLIPPED OFF A LANDSCAPING ROCK... PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON...