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
UNNECESSARILY ALLOWING THE JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY REASONABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.
RELEASE DID NOT ENCOMPASS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF.
MOTHER DID NOT DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING BECAUSE HER ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT AND MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Absent Landowners Not Liable for Injuries at Party Hosted on their Property.
Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against Mechanic Who Inspected Defendant’s Car—Plaintiff Did Not Allege the Mechanic Created or Exacerbated Any Dangerous Condition—Therefore the Complaint Did Not Allege the Mechanic Owed Plaintiff a Duty of Care
THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A BORROWER IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE ARREARS AND STOP THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPEDE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WHEN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS STARTED; THE DEBT HERE WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN 2009 RENDERING THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS, MATTER REMITTED; THE USUAL PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARDING CUSTODY TO A NONPARENT DO NOT APPLY TO A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT WITH A NONPARENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE HUNTING TURKEY WHEN DEFENDANT SHOT PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...