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
Court Properly Awarded Sole Custody to Mother, Despite Expressed Wishes of Adolescent Child
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO A NONPARENT WITHOUT FIRST MAKING A FINDING WHETHER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, APPEAL HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered
GIVEN WHAT THE INFORMANT TOLD THE POLICE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED HIM ON THE STREET PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION THE DEFENDANT HAD A WEAPON AND THEREBY JUSTIFIED PURSUIT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION FROM THE INFORMANT WAS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFDENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND BEFORE OR AFTER THE CHASE STARTED (FOURTH DEPT).
TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT (PLUMBING PIPES) IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS AS TRESPASS BY THE ARTIFICIAL DIVERSION OF WATER; TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT IS A CONTINUING TRESPASS UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OR AN EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS AN “UNWARNED” THREE-FOOT DROP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A DOOR IN A REMOTE AREA OF THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF, A HOSPITAL WORKER, WAS INJURED BY THE THREE-FOOT DROP; THE ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND NO DUTY WAS OWED TO THE PLAINTIFF; THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE ARCHITECT’S SPECIFICATIONS AND COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Absentee Landlord Granted Summary Judgment in Lead-Paint Exposure Case—No Constructive Notice

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

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...