You are here: / Court of Claims
, ,

THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE; THE AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims and remitting the matter for a new determination of damages for past pain and suffering. The Court of Claims interpreted the ad damnum clause which read “!0.000.000” to mean $10,000 and awarded that amount. The Second Department noted that the amount of damages should be based on the evidence, not on the ad damnum clause:​

… [A]lthough the Court of Claims found that the claimant’s evidence could support a “substantial recovery for past and future pain and suffering,” it limited the award of damages to $10,000 based on its interpretation of the ad damnum clause. The court should have granted “any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded” (CPLR 3017[a] …). Although the trier of fact’s “determination is entitled to great deference, it may be set aside if the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” … . An award of $10,000 deviates materially from awards for similar injuries … . Consequently, the court should have awarded an amount for past pain and suffering that was supported by the evidence submitted by the claimant … . Bonneau v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03699, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: The damages awarded for past pain and suffering should be based on the evidence. The award is not limited to the amount in the ad damnum clause of the claim.​

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROCEEDING UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 52 TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STATE INSURANCE FUND TO THE EXTENT THE STATE IS A GARNISHEE (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this CPLR article 52 action to enforce a money judgment against New York State Insurance Fund. Ordinarily an action for money damages against a state agency is litigated in the Court of Claims:

In this proceeding, the State Insurance Fund is postured not as a judgment debtor but as a garnishee. As such, under CPLR 5207, all procedures for the enforcement of money judgments against other judgment debtors are applicable to it, as a garnishee, “except where otherwise prescribed by law” and except that an order “shall only provide for the payment of moneys not claimed by the [S]tate” and that no judgment may be entered against the State in such a procedure.

The State Insurance Fund has not shown that this proceeding is otherwise prescribed by law. To the contrary, CPLR 5221(a)(4) provides that the Supreme Court or a County Court has authority to hear enforcement proceedings “authorized by this article,” meaning the entirety of CPLR article 52, which, of course, includes CPLR 5207 garnishment proceedings against the State. … The petition seeks entry of an order, not a judgment. Thus, contrary to the State Insurance Fund’s contention, we hold that the Supreme Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment as against the State Insurance Fund to the extent that the State’s role in this instance is that of a garnishee. Matter of Doran Constr. Corp. v New York State Ins. Fund, 2025 NY Slip Op 03716, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here, under very complicated facts, Supreme Court was deemed to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action to enforce a money judgment against a state agency where the state’s role is that of a garnishee.

 

,

CLAIMANT’S SEXUAL ABUSE CONVICTION WAS VACATED AFTER THE ALLEGED VICTIM RECANTED; CLAIMANT BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE STATE PURSUANT TO COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 8-B FOR UNJUST CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT; THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion, affirming the dismissal of claimant’s action for unjust conviction and imprisonment, determined claimant, whose sexual abuse conviction was vacated after the alleged victim recanted, did not prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Tuckett filed this claim against the State, seeking damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b. Tuckett needed to “prove by clear and convincing evidence” the remaining two elements of his claim: that “he did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument” and that “he did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction” (Court of Claims Act § 8-b [5] [c], [d]). * * *

A claimant who asserts a damages claim against the State under section 8-b must prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence. That task “is certainly not a simple one” … . After hearing from and observing Tuckett and N.M. (the alleged victim), the Court of Claims determined that the accusations were credible and the recantation was not, and that Tuckett therefore failed to carry his burden. We see no reversible error in that decision. Tuckett v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03099, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: An action against the state for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act section 8-b requires that the claimant prove his or her innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Here the testimony of the alleged victim, who had recanted his allegations of sexual abuse, was not enough.

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S STATE UNIVERSITY OWED DECEDENT A DUTY TO WARN HIM OF THE HOSTILITY HARBORED BY ANOTHER STUDENT WHO ULTIMATELY MURDERED DECEDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined there exists a question of fact whether decedent’s university (Binghamton) owed decedent a duty to warn decedent of the hostility toward decedent harbored by another student (Roque), a former friend of the decedent, who murdered decedent:

To hold defendant liable for negligence, claimant must establish that the University owed decedent a duty, breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of decedent’s death … . The threshold issue in any negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legally recognized duty of care … . The existence and scope of a duty are legal questions for the courts to resolve in the first instance … .

… Claimant … is not seeking to hold the University liable for failing to protect decedent simply by virtue of his status as a student on campus … . The crux of claimant’s argument, as we understand it, is that counselors employed by the University’s Counseling Center were negligent in failing to make a threat assessment referral to the Dean of Students’ office upon learning of Roque’s hostility toward decedent in the months before the attack and in failing to warn decedent of Roque’s threats against him. Since the specific acts of negligence occurred during the University’s provision of mental health services — a proprietary function … — we conclude that no special duty need be established to hold the University liable and it is “held to the same duty of care as private individuals and institutions engaging in the same activity” … . * * *

Given that the University had threat assessment and referral procedures in place governing actions to take when faced with a distressed student, we conclude that the University owed decedent a duty to reasonably comply with those policies, if applicable … . Cuomo v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department held a state university may have a “general” (not a “special”) duty to warn a student of hostility harbored by another student.

 

, ,

THE INFORMATION IN THE CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CLAIM WAS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE STATE TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BETWEEN 1986 AND 1990; CLAIM DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan,, determined the Child Victims Act claim did not provide sufficient information to allow the State to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse between 1986 and 1990:

… [W]e conclude that Wright’s [claimant’s] claim lacks the specificity section [Court of Claims Act] 11 (b) requires. Because the allegations are too spare to enable the State promptly to investigate and ascertain the existence and extent of its liability, the claim suffers a jurisdictional defect and therefore must be dismissed.

The claim lacks critical information about the abusers. It alleges that the perpetrators included teachers, coaches, counselors, and perhaps other employees of the State, but it does not explain whether those employees were Wright’s teachers, coaches, and counselors, or why, as a child, he was in their company multiple times between 1986 and 1990. The claim also alleges that members of the public were responsible for some of the abuse he suffered, but it does not explain why Wright came into contact with those persons as a child, the context in which adult supervision of any particular activity allegedly should have been provided, or the extent to which the State bore responsibility for Wright’s contact with the abusers. Nor does the claim adequately allege what repeatedly brought Wright to The Egg [a State performing arts center] over a four-year period in the late 1980s, or why, once on the premises, he frequently engaged with both members of the public and State employees.

In the absence of such information, the State cannot promptly investigate the claim and determine its liability under Wright’s theories of negligence. … The State is left to “guess” whether at any point during the four-year period alleged in the claim it owed some duty to Wright and, if so, whether it breached that obligation … . But it “is not the State’s burden . . . to assemble information” not included in a claim so that it may promptly investigate and assess its liability … . Section 11 (b) places that burden on the claimant. Wright v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01564, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: If the claim in a Child Victims Act suit against the State does not provide enough information to allow the State to investigate, it will be deemed to lack the specificity required by Court of Claims Act section 11 (b) and will be dismissed.​

 

, , ,

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.

 

, ,

WITNESS TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED CLAIMANT LOST CONTROL OF HIS MOTORCYCLE AFTER GETTING CAUGHT IN A RUT IN THE ROAD; THE STATE HAD TAKEN PICTURES A FEW MONTHS BEFORE WHICH DEPICTED THE ROAD DEFECT; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the state had actual or constructive notice of the road defect which caused claimant to lose control of his motorcycle. Photographs of the area, taken by the State a few months before claimant’s accident in connection with the clean-up of a fuel-truck-accident, depicted the road defect:

Anthony Monzillo testified that he was riding his own motorcycle approximately 15 to 20 feet behind the claimant, and he observed the front wheel of the claimant’s motorcycle go into a “rutted area” and “get caught and begin to wobble side to side” and saw the motorcycle fall over. * * *

Quadri [a State engineer] oversaw the clean-up and remedial work of the roadway in April and May 2017, following the truck accident, and photographs taken in April 2017 of the clean-up and remediation work depicted the defect in the roadway. Quadri testified that he was at the truck accident site at least six times during April and May 2017. While Quadri acknowledged during his testimony that he could see “a separation in the pavement” in a photograph taken in April or May 2017, he further testified that he could not remember seeing the separation in the pavement when he was at the site in April 2017. Quadri also testified that DOT maintenance crews would patrol Route 293 at least once a week looking for areas that require maintenance or repairs and would repair “potholes in the travel lanes . . . right away.” … . …

Based upon our review of the record, including the photographs and the witnesses’ testimony, we conclude that the claimant met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a dangerous condition of which the defendant was actually or constructively aware and which it failed to take reasonable measures to correct and that such failure was a proximate cause of the claimant’s accident … . Paci v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 06569, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: A witness demonstrated the road defect caused claimant’s accident. Photographs demonstrated the State had constructive notice of the road defect. The defense verdict was not supported.

 

, ,

AFTER SKIING ALL DAY AND RETURNING THE EQUIPMENT, CLAIMANT SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A PARKING LOT; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; THE COURT NOTED THAT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, HERE AN INCIDENT REPORT, MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF IT DUPLICATES NON-HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Court of Claims, determined that the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply to claimant who had finished skiing for the day and was walking to his car in the parking lot when he sipped and fell on ice and snow. The court noted that inadmissible hearsay, here and incident report, may be considered on a summary judgment motion where it duplicates non-hearsay evidence:

… [I]t is undisputed that [claimant] fell at a time when he was finished skiing for the day, and he no longer had any ski equipment on or near his person. He was, instead, returning to his parked vehicle, intending to exit defendants’ property entirely. As a matter of law, [claimant] was not engaged in any facet of skiing at the time that he was injured, and the primary assumption of risk doctrine is therefore inapplicable … . * * *

To the extent that defendants argue that the incident report, as well as certain aspects of Weichsel’s testimony, is inadmissible hearsay and thus may not be relied upon by claimants, we first note that such evidence was proffered by defendants in support of their own motion. In any event, inadmissible hearsay may be considered at the summary judgment stage where it exists alongside admissible evidence in support of the same argument … . Weichsel v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05384, Third Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: The assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply to a skier who, after skiing all day and returning the equipment, slips and falls in the parking lot.

Practice Point: Inadmissible hearsay, here an incident report, can be considered on a summary judgment motion it it duplicates non-hearsay.

 

,

WHEN THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS) ASSUMED CUSTODY OF CLAIMANT, IT OWED CLAIMANT A DUTY TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST FORESEEABLE HARM, INCLUDING SEXUAL ASSAULT; THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THE STATE DID NOT OWE CLAIMANT A SPECIAL DUTY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined this Child Victims Act action against the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) should not have been dismissed on the ground the state did not owe plaintiff a special duty:

For the reasons set forth in our recent decision in A.J. v State of New York (___ AD3d ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 04231 [3d Dept 2024]), we reverse. As in that case, claimant was in OCFS’s custody at the time he was allegedly assaulted. “When a government entity assumes custody of a person, thus diminishing that person’s ability to self-protect or access those usually charged with such protection, that entity owes to that person a duty of protection against harms that are reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances”(A.J. v State of New York,2024 NY Slip Op 04231 at *2). Because defendant owed claimant a duty of care, the claim stated a cause of action and the motion to dismiss should have been denied. McTighe v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05251, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: In the Third Department, the claimant in a Child Victims Act case against the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) alleging sexual abuse while in its custody does need to demonstrate the state owed claimant a special duty. The state is deemed to have assumed a duty to protect children in its custody from foreseeable harm.

 

, ,

CLAIMANT-INMATE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN HER CUBICLE IN A DORMITORY WITHOUT DOORS WHILE THE CORRECTION OFFICER (CO) GUARDING THE DORMITORY WAS ASLEEP; CLAIMANT PRESENTED ADEQUATE PROOF THE ASSAULT WAS FORESEEABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant-inmate in this negligent supervision action presented sufficient proof the sexual assault by another inmate was foreseeable. Claimant was in a dormitory with cubicles and no doors. A male inmate crawled into claimant’s cubicle when the correction officer (CO) guarding dormitory was asleep:

… [T]he question is not what the State actually knows, but what it should have known, i.e., whether defendant has constructive notice … . There was a preponderance of evidence that defendant was aware that this claimant was at risk of sexual assault because defendant’s own sexual victimization risk screening procedures, and placement in the 10-1 dorm’s PREA cube as a result of her complaints about harassment immediately before the sexual assault, identified her as being in a class of individuals vulnerable to the risk of sexual assault … . Moreover, placement in the PREA cube generally, and in this case specifically, is a tacit acknowledgement that individuals who are identified as vulnerable and live in a general population dormitory consisting of a communal sleeping area, must have more protection at night. A sleeping CO negates this added protection at this critical time. Thus, it was not necessary for defendant to have notice that COs generally, or this CO specifically, slept during shifts. It is not unreasonable to expect that COs are conscious, alert and attentive while on duty monitoring an open-floor-plan dormitory of incarcerated individuals in a maximum-security prison. R.S. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05253, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Here there was sufficient proof that the sexual assault by another inmate was foreseeable. Claimant was recognized as vulnerable to sexual assault, was placed in a dormitory cubicle with no door, and the correction officer assigned to guard the dormitory was asleep. The fact that the CO’s falling asleep may not have been foreseeable was not the determinative issue.​

 

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