You are here: / / 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SHERIFF AND UNDERSHERIFF IN THEIR...
,

42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SHERIFF AND UNDERSHERIFF IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES STEMMING FROM THE SUICIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT IN THE ERIE COUNTY JAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 42 USC 1983 causes of action against the sheriff and undersheriff in their official capacities, stemming from plaintiffs’ decedent’s suicide in the Erie County Jail, should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiffs that in state court they can assert a section 1983 cause of action against a sheriff or undersheriff in his or her official capacity. Until 1989, New York Constitution, article XIII, section 13 (a) stated that counties could not be made responsible for acts of sheriffs. Although that provision was removed via amendment in 1989, that amendment merely granted counties the ability to assume liability if the they chose to do so … . Erie County has not passed any legislation assuming such responsibility and, as a result, cannot be responsible for the acts of the Sheriff or Undersheriff … . We thus conclude that the Sheriff and the Undersheriff are the proper defendants for the section 1983 cause of action.

“The gravamen of the cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 is deprivation of property without due process of law. The essential elements of the cause of action are conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law, which deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured . . . by the Constitution or laws of the United States’ ” … . The Sheriff has a duty to “ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and [to] take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates’ ” … . Here, plaintiffs’ allegations that the Sheriff and Undersheriff failed to take measures to ensure the safety of the inmates from suicide are sufficient to state a viable cause of action under section 1983 … . Freeland v Erie County, 2020 NY Slip Op 04244 Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

You might also like
HERE THE EVIDENCE WAS PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING A VIOLENT COURTROOM SCENE IN A MOVIE TO BE PLAYED FOR THE JURY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD QUOTED DIALOGUE FROM IT, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE DISSENT ARGUED IT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, MADE ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, WAS NOT UNTIMELY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED ON THAT GROUND, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
An Action by a Judgment Creditor Pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227 Seeks both Legal and Equitable Relief—a Jury Trial Is Therefore Not Available
WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FUNCTIONED AS A DE FACTO RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY BY PROVIDING HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES; THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, AVAILABLE ONLY FOR SUITS AGAINST RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME, WHICH APPARENTLY ALLEGED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NEGLIGENTLY EXPOSED TO COVID-19, WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT” OR THE “FEDERAL PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY ACT” (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Appeal Dismissal of Underlying Medical Malpractice Action Did Not Preclude Related Legal Malpractice Action

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

THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY COULD NOT REALIZE A REASONABLE... THE CITY MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR REVIEW AND REDACTION OF POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERA...