You are here: / Court of Claims
, , ,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CLAIMANT’S INJURY, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PROTECT CLAIMANT WHILE IN FOSTER CARE AND THE TIME THE CLAIM AROSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the Notice of Claim in this Child Victims Act proceeding sufficiently described claimant’s injury, the state’s failure to protect claimant while in foster care, and the time when the claim arose:

… [T]he claim sufficiently provided the defendant with a description of the manner in which the claimant was injured, and how the defendant was negligent in allegedly failing to protect the claimant from sexual abuse while a resident in a state-certified foster care facility. The claimant is not required to set forth the evidentiary facts underlying the allegations of negligence in order to satisfy the section 11(b) “nature of the claim” requirement … . As the claim is sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to investigate and ascertain its liability, it satisfies the nature of the claim requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b)… .

… The claim alleges that the claimant was sexually abused repeatedly in 1992 and 1993, on numerous and regular occasions, including conduct taking place in his room three to four times a week. This Court has stated recently in the context of the CVA, that “[w]e recognize that in matters of sexual abuse involving minors, as recounted by survivors years after the fact, dates and times are sometimes approximate and incapable of calendrical exactitude” … . Thus a claimant commencing a claim pursuant to the CVA is not required to allege the exact date on which the sexual abuse occurred … . As the claim here sufficiently alleges the time when the abuse occurred, the Court of Claims properly declined to dismiss the claim on that ground … . Davila v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03451, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: In this Child Victims Act case against the state alleging the failure to protect claimant in foster care, the Notice of Claim sufficiently alleged the injury, defendant’s negligence and the time the claim arose.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS CONDUCTING A STRIP SEARCH OF CLAIMANT PRISONER WERE PARTIALLY MOTIVATED BY THE INTENT TO HUMILIATE, THEY WERE DEEMED TO BE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND THE STATE IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THEIR INTENTIONAL TORTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined the state was properly found liable for the actions of corrections officers who conducted a strip search of claimant prisoner. The strip search protocol includes having a male inmate lift his testicles and spread his cheeks. Here the corrections officers repeatedly made claimant touch his genitals and then run his fingers along his gums. The officers made claimant do the same after inserting his finger in his anus. Although the officers were committing intentional torts, their actions were deemed to be within the scope of their employment, making the state vicariously liable:

The law is well established that intentional torts may still fall within the scope of employment, and the motivation for such conduct is not dispositive as to defendant’s liability; rather, that factor is but one of several for our consideration pertaining to whether such acts were foreseeable as “a natural incident of the employment” … . Said differently, “where the element of general foreseeability exists, even intentional tort situations have been found to fall within the scope of employment”… . Although the correction officers’ actions may have been motivated in part by an intent to humiliate claimant, we disagree with defendant’s assertion that such intent was the sole motivation for each of the commands and that such actions were undertaken without any furtherance of defendant’s business .. . In this respect, the preponderance of the acts performed during the strip frisk and placement into observation did not significantly deviate from the mandates of the directive and were in fact required prior to claimant’s confinement in one-on-one observation. What rendered the incident demeaning, and the reason that claimant has a viable claim, is the product of the sequence in which those acts occurred. Moreover, the potential for such conduct is precisely that which was foreseen in the warnings contained in the directives, which instructed those officers conducting a strip frisk to be mindful of the sensitive nature of the search and to conduct themselves “in a manner least degrading to all involved.” M.K. v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03268, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: An employer can be vicariously liable for the intentional torts of employees if the employees were acting within the scope of their employment. Here corrections officers were conducting a required strip search of the claimant prisoner, but they did so in a mean-spirited and deliberately and profoundly degrading manner. The state was deemed vicariously liable for the officers’ intentional torts.

Practice Point: The decision does not specify the intentional torts for which the state was found liable. There is a public policy prohibiting “intentional infliction of emotional distress” claims against governmental entities, so that cause of action may not have been a basis for the state’s liability in this case. The Digest does not have a general “Intentional Torts” category. This decision was placed in the “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” category only because it seems closest to the facts.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT PROCEEDING, THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE TIME WHEN THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TOOK PLACE; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claim sufficiently stated when the alleged sexual assault occurred in this Child Victims Act action:

“Court of Claims Act § 11(b) requires a claim to specify (1) the nature of the claim; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed” … . A failure to comply with the requirements set forth in section 11(b) is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the claim … . “[A] sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim” is necessary because “[t]he purpose of the section 11(b) pleading requirements is . . . to enable the State to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability” … . “Because suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed” … . However, “‘[a]bsolute exactness is not required,'” so long as the particulars of the claim are detailed in a manner sufficient to permit investigation … . * * * The Court of Claims erred in directing dismissal of so much of the claim as relates to the alleged sexual assault perpetrated by Hector. The claimant alleged, inter alia, that she was admitted to RPC in 1969 when she was 10 years old, and that Hector assaulted her in the auditorium in the first year of her admission. Contrary to the State’s argument, the claimant was not required to allege the exact dates on which the sexual abuse occurred …”. Wimbush-Burkett v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 02804, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: Here in this Child Victims Act action, the claim sufficiently alleged the time of the sexual assault. The criteria for a sufficient claim under Court of Claims Act section 11(b) are laid out.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTENTS OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE IN COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11 ARE STRICT AND JURISDICTIONAL, THE CLAIMANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLEGE EVIDENTIARY FACTS (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claim in this Child Victims Act proceeding sufficiently stated the nature of the claim. The claimant alleged he was sexually abused in state-run foster homes every week for two years (1994 – 1996}. The claim alleged negligent hiring, retention or supervision:

The only reason identified by the Court of Claims in the order appealed from, and by the defendant on appeal, for concluding that the claim failed to state the nature of the claim is that, while the claim included an allegation that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged sexual abuse, it did not supply any “details” as to how the defendant received notice of the alleged abuse. Although the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) are strict, and jurisdictional in nature, the fact remains that the claim is a pleading, the contents of which are merely allegations. As the defendant correctly contends, “[a] necessary element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . Nonetheless, “[c]auses of action alleging negligence based upon negligent hiring, retention, or supervision are not statutorily required to be pleaded with specificity” ,,, . The manner in which the defendant acquired actual or constructive notice of the alleged abuse is an evidentiary fact, to be proved by the claimant at trial. In a pleading, “the plaintiff need not allege his [or her] evidence” … . Martinez v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01990, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: A claim (i.e., the pleading) against the state must meet the strict, jurisdictional “contents” requirements in Court of Claims Act section 11. But the claim is merely a pleading and need not allege evidentiary facts to survive a motion to dismiss.

 

, , ,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE STATE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED WHEN THE ABUSE OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act (CVA) suit, determined the notice of claim sufficiently alleged the time when the alleged sexual abuse of claimant took place in a state psychiatric center. The court noted that the respondeat superior cause of action should be dismissed because any sexual abuse by a state employee would not be within the scope of employment as a matter of law:

… [T]he Court of Claims incorrectly determined that the claimant was required to allege the exact date on which the sexual abuse occurred … . The claimant’s allegations, including that the abuse occurred in 1993 while she was 14 years old and attending a gym class at Sagamore, were sufficient to satisfy the “time when” requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) in this claim brought pursuant to the CVA … . Wagner v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01546, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point; Here in this Child Victims Act suit, the allegation that the sexual abuse took place in 1993, when claimant was 14 and attending gym class met the “time when” requirement for a notice of claim.

 

, ,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE AT A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED THE TIME PERIOD WHEN THE ABUSE ALLEGEDLY TOOK PLACE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act action, determined that the notice of claim sufficiently described when the alleged sexual abuse took place at the state’s psychiatric center:

The claimant commenced this claim against the State of New York to recover damages resulting from alleged acts of sexual assault committed against her, beginning when she was 15 years old, by an employee of Sagamore Children’s Psychiatric Center (hereinafter Sagamore). * * *

… [T]he claim was sufficiently specific to satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b). The claim alleged negligent hiring, training, and supervision of an employee who had subjected the claimant to multiple sexual assaults at Sagamore between June 5, 2013, and September 16, 2013—a period of approximately three months—while the claimant was a patient at Sagamore. This was sufficiently specific to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and ascertain its liability … . D. G. v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01183, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Here the notice of claim sufficiently described the three-month time-frame when the alleged sexual abuse of the plaintiff took place at a state psychiatric hospital, The Child Victims Act lawsuit should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE ALLEGATION THE ABUSE TOOK PLACE IN 1982 – 1983 WAS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO MEET THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act proceeding, determined the claim sufficiently described when the sexual abuse occurred. The claimant alleged she was abused by a state employee in 1982 and 1983 when she was 17. The Court of Claims had dismissed the claim finding that the allegations when the abuse took place were not specific enough. The Second Department found the 1982 – 1983 time frame adequate:

Court of Claims Act § 11(b) “places five specific substantive conditions upon the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity by requiring the claim to specify (1) the nature of [the claim]; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed” … .  ***

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the date ranges provided in the claim stating that the sexual abuse commenced in approximately 1982 and occurred “repeatedly” and “multiple times” from approximately 1982 to 1983, during periods when the claimant was directed to the Workshop to receive counseling, along with other information contained in the claim including, inter alia, that there was a criminal investigation, prosecution, and conviction of West based upon the claimant’s complaints of sexual abuse, were sufficient to satisfy the “time when” requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) … . Fenton v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-8-23

Practice Point: Here in this Child Victims Act case against a state employee, the allegation the sexual abuse took place in 1982 – 1983 was deemed specific enough to satisfy the pleading requirements in the Court of Claims Act.

Similar issues and result in Meyer v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00658, Second Dept 2-8-23

 

, ,

THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY OF CLAIMANT-INMATE BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS OCCURRED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND WAS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE; THEREFORE THE STATE, AS THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYER, COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the alleged assault and battery by corrections officers occurred within the scope of the officers’ employment at the correctional facility and was reasonably foreseeable. Therefore the state could be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Court of Claims had held the assault was conduct outside the scope of the officers’ employment and the state therefore was not liable:

… [W]hile it is our view that the correction officers’ use of force was excessive, the ensuing investigations of the incident effectively condoned the conduct of the correction officers and tacitly found them to be engaged in actions that were within the scope of employment … . To this end, it was claimant that was found guilty of misbehavior for assaulting prison staff, and prison officials determined that the use of force was “consistent with Departmental Rules[,] and [that] the injuries received, both by staff and the involved [incarcerated individual] are accounted for.” This evidence reflects that prison officials determined that the conduct of the correction officers was appropriate under the circumstances and fell within the scope of employment. Finally, in light of claimant’s … report accusing Poupore [one of the corrections officers involved] of inappropriate contact with claimant, which preceded the incident, and Poupore’s knowledge of same, it was clearly foreseeable that a tense encounter could result during further interactions between Poupore and claimant in the context of normal employment-related activities in the prison … . Altogether, we find that the foregoing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the assault occurred within the scope of the correction officers’ employment as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an employment-related activity and that the verdict in this case must be reversed on the facts and the law. Galloway v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00137, Third Dept 1-12-23

Practice Point: The assault and battery of claimant-inmate was deemed to be within the scope of the corrections officers’ employment and foreseeable. Therefore the state, as the officers’ employer, could be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

 

,

CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM BUT NOT THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (NYSTA); ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE (IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) WAS NOT VALID, THE ACTION HAD MERIT AND THE NYSTA HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THEREFORE CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE A LATE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

​The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant’s motion for leave to file a late claim in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action should have been granted. Claimant was injured working on the Tappan Zee Bridge and served a notice of intention to file a claim on the attorney general but not, as required, on the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA). The absence of a valid excuse (ignorance of the law) was not determinative. The action had merit and the NYSTA had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim:

Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors set forth therein, to allow a claimant to file a late claim … . “In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy” … .. “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … . Swart v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07088, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The Court of Claims, pursuant to Court of Claims Act section 10(6), has the discretion to allow a claimant to file a late claim. Here the excuse, ignorance of the law, was not valid. But the claim was deemed to have merit and the respondent had timely knowledge of the underlying facts. Therefore the Court of Claims should have granted claimant’s motion to file a late claim.

, ,

STATING THE WRONG DATE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM RENDERED THE NOTICE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND THE 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM, RENDERING THE CLAIM FILED MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF LATER UNTIMELY; THE DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the claimant’s failure to set forth the correct date of the alleged dental malpractice in the notice of intention to file a claim was a jurisdictional defect, notwithstanding the correct date set forth in the subsequently filed claim: Because the notice of intention was jurisdictionally defective it did not extend the 90-day period for filing a claim rendering the claim filed more than a year and a half later untimely:

The claimant served the defendant with a notice of intention to file a claim dated January 9, 2017, which alleged that the claimant was injured when her mouth and lips were burned during the course of her treatment as a patient at a particular address where the defendant operated a school of dental medicine. The notice of intention to file a claim stated that “[t]he claim arose on or about October 15, 2016, the last date of continuous treatment and prior to said date.”

In the subsequent claim, dated October 16, 2018, the claimant stated that she was injured on October 20, 2016, when hot wax was negligently spilled on her face and mouth while an employee of the defendant was attempting to make a wax mold for dentures. * * *

Section 10(3) of the Court of Claims Act sets forth time limitations for asserting “[a] claim to recover damages . . . for personal injuries caused by . . . negligence.” Such a claim “shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within [90] days after the accrual of such claim” (id.). However, if the claimant serves “a written notice of intention to file a claim” within 90 days after the accrual of the claim, “the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim” … . * * * Since the claimant’s notice of intention to file a claim was substantively deficient (see Court of Claims Act § 11[b]), it did not extend the claimant’s time to file and serve a claim beyond the 90-day statutory period … . Under the circumstances, the claim was untimely (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] …). “The claimant’s failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Court of Claims Act deprived the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction” … . Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sacher v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07087, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Including the wrong date for the allegedly negligent act in the notice of intention to file a claim renders the notice jurisdictionally defective pursuant to the Court of Claims Act.

Practice Point: Ordinarily filing a notice of intention to file a claim extends the period for filing a claim from 90 days to two years. However, the extension is not triggered by a jurisdictionally defective notice of claim. The claim here, filed more than a year and a half after the notice of intention, was therefore untimely.

 

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