You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT STATE PAROLE OFFICER WAS DRIVING A STATE-OWNED VEHICLE...
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT STATE PAROLE OFFICER WAS DRIVING A STATE-OWNED VEHICLE AND ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY BROUGHT SUIT IN SUPREME COURT AS OPPOSED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Correction Law did not require that plaintiff bring this traffic accident case involving a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) parole officer in the Court of Claims. Although the defendant officer was driving a State-owned vehicle and was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident, the lawsuit was properly brought in Supreme Court:

“Not every suit against an officer of the State, however, is a suit against the State” … . “A suit against a State officer will be held to be one which is really asserted against the State when it arises from actions or determinations of the officer made in his or her official role and involves rights asserted, not against the officer individually, but solely against the State” … . If, however, “the suit against the State agent or officer is in tort for damages arising from the breach of a duty owed individually by such agent or officer directly to the injured party, the State is not the real party in interest—even though it could be held secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior” … .

Correction Law § 24 (2) provides that claims for damages “arising out of any act done or the failure to perform any act within the scope of the employment and in the discharge of the duties” of any State employee shall be brought in the Court of Claims as claims against the State. Thus, Correction Law § 24 “places actions for money damages against [DOCCS] employees within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims only where the conduct alleged is within the scope of the officer’s employment and in the discharge of his or her official duties” … .

Here, the complaint asserts a single cause of action based on allegations that defendant operated the vehicle in a negligent manner, i.e., that defendant’s alleged negligence arises from her violation of a duty she owed plaintiff as a fellow driver, and not as a DOCCS employee. Thus, plaintiff’s action is “against . . . defendant individually for an alleged breach of a duty of care owed by the defendant directly to [plaintiff], and not one against State officers as representatives of the State in their official capacity which had to be brought in the Court of Claims pursuant to Correction Law § 24” … . Maiorana v Green, 2025 NY Slip Op 01518, Fourth Dept 12-14-25

Practice Point: Although the defendant parole officer was acting within the scope of her employment when she was driving the state-owned vehicle, the traffic accident allegedly breached a duty of care owed directly to the plaintiff by the defendant as a fellow driver, not as a state employee.

 

You might also like
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHO ALLEGEDLY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT, IT WAS AN IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO DELAY THE DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT UNTIL THE TRIAL OR DISPOSITION OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSE AFTER THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN SEVERED FROM THE ACTION AT THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST, AND AFTER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT HAD REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE TRIAL, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT, THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY INSTRUCTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT ELEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY A CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF AS A TRUSTEE (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, VETERINARY RECORDS ARE DISCOVERABLE BY SUBPOENA (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF PROMOTING A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE OF A CHILD AND IMPROPERLY CROSS-EXAMINED THE DEFENDANT IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED, THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING AND FALLING ON A LANDING WET FROM RAIN AT THE TWELFTH HOLE OF DEFENDANT GOLF COURSE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction, Supported by Evidence that (1) the People May Have Violated Their “Brady” Obligation to Inform the Defense of a Plea Deal Made In Return for Testimony and (2) a Juror May Have Had a Mental Disability, Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCAFFOLD WAS AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FATHER’S RIGHT TO FILE FUTURE PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD... THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY...