Case law

Metildi v. State

177 Misc. 179 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 25, 1941

There was only a general statement by counsel that it was the State’s duty “ to inspect elevators in establishments of this character.” … Clearly it was intended for the protection of those workmen of whom claimant’s intestate was one.

Pandolph v. State

155 Misc. 2d 612 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 28, 1992

At common law, the State, as sovereign, was immune from liability (Glassman v Glassman, 309 NY 436, 440 ; Horoch v State of New York, 286 App Div 303, 304-305 ). … While exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims clearly extends to lawsuits for monetary damages arising out of acts or omissions of State agencies (Sinhogar v Parry, 53 NY2d 424 ; Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413 ), the issue

Kahn v. State

117 Misc. 186 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1921

By this act the state clearly waived its immunity from suit and waived the due filing of a notice of intention; but this is not in itself sufficient. “ The immunity of the state from liability for the torts of its agents … The state by the act in ques *189 tion not only failed to assume liability under the facts stated, but expressly provided that facts establishing liability on the part of the state must be proved as a condition precedent

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. State

99 Misc. 2d 140 · New York Court of Claims · Apr 9, 1979

The New York authorities establish that a remedy at law exists for the type of injury suffered by St. Paul. In Empire Sq. Realty Co. v Chase Nat. Bank of City of N. … The conclusion is inescapable that the Legislature did not intend the State to remain immune from suit under article 3-A. The only question is: in what forum?

Mowers v. State

168 Misc. 651 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 10, 1938

The troopers were employees of the State, and for damages caused by their negligence the State has waived its immunity. (Court of Claims Act, § 12.) But concededly they were not negligent. … Claimants contend, however, that they established a moral obligation against the State for which compensation may be made. The powers of this court are entirely statutory. It has no equitable jurisdiction.

Brennan v. State

64 Misc. 2d 213 · New York Court of Claims · Oct 9, 1970

Clearly the parties and their privies are bound by a prior determination of any cause sought to [be] relitigated; but what of persons neither parties nor in privity with a party to the first action! … It is recognized that in our State the waiver of sovereign immunity does not include the right to a jury trial.

Coakley v. State

150 Misc. 2d 903 · New York Court of Claims · May 2, 1991

Section 8-b then tells us that such a claimant will still qualify for relief if but only if the grounds relied on were those set forth as acceptable under CPL 440.10. … Traditionally their only recourse was through private statutes or actions for false arrest or malicious prosecution where many of the participants were absolutely or qualifiedly immune.

Nolan v. State of New York

2023 NY Slip Op 23424 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 18, 2023

Also, it is well established that the NYPD members are not State officials but rather local city officials for whose tortious acts the State is not responsible and the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. … Clearly, these are not State crimes and there is no State involvement whatsoever, therefore, Court of Claims Act § 8-b provisions have no applicability here.

Glenn v. State

144 Misc. 2d 101 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 9, 1989

It is therefore immune and cannot form the basis of a finding of liability predicated on negligence. (Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34 ; Chung v State of New York, 122 Misc 2d 676 .) … v State of New York, 71 AD2d 181 ) or to a police investigator, who is only entitled to a qualified protection (see, Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 ). .

Drake v. State

97 Misc. 2d 1015 · New York Court of Claims · May 18, 1979

Although *1019 the establishment of roadblocks was discussed as early as 6:15 p.m., none were established until 8:00 p.m., and then only to the south of the campsite. … In doing so, they acted in reckless disregard for their own safety and clearly assumed the risk of injury.

Fraser v. State

112 Misc. 19 · New York Court of Claims · May 15, 1920

And it can only be made liable when the state waives its immunity. … In this case the state has assumed liability and waived its immunity, but with the proviso, however, in the legislative enactment assuming such liability that the state would only be *23 liable under the same circumstances

Herman v. State

109 Misc. 2d 455 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 10, 1981

The decision-making power with respect to such projects properly reposes in the executive and legislative branches of government whose discretionary acts are clothed with qualified immunity. … The previous accidents concerning which claimant has adduced evidence, clearly establish that sand bars constituted a hazardous condition at WE 2; that accidents caused thereby were serious in nature; and that the State had

Seelye v. State

178 Misc. 278 · New York Court of Claims · Apr 1, 1942

This testimony established the State’s right of way limits within the village. Mr. … Statutes in derogation of the sovereignty of the State must be strictly construed, and a waiver of liability must be clearly expressed. (Litchfield v. Bond, 186 N. Y. 66 ; Smith v. State of New York, 227 id. 405.)

Estate of Fabiano v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 50901(U) · New York Court of Claims · Apr 16, 2025

In opposition to the motion, Claimant argues that the State has failed to "conclusively establish entitlement to immunity". … Thus, these actions may be recommenced if they qualify for recommencement under CPLR 205 (a)".

Estate of Fabiano v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 50901(U) · New York Court of Claims · Apr 16, 2025

In opposition to the motion, Claimant argues that the State has failed to "conclusively establish entitlement to immunity". … Thus, these actions may be recommenced if they qualify for recommencement under CPLR 205 (a)".

Zulauf v. State

119 Misc. 2d 135 · New York Court of Claims · May 9, 1983

This has been interpreted to mean that the immunity accorded can only be denied where there is evidence of an exercise of these privileges in excess of reasonableness under the circumstances. … With respect to Blanche and William Peltier, the nexus between the trooper’s negligence and the fire which resulted in their deaths has been clearly established.

Goldstein v. State

168 Misc. 337 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 1, 1938

Section 12-a goes beyond the point of a mere waiver of immunity from suit. It waives immunity not only from suit but also from liability. … State’s immunity from liability.

Duverney v. State

96 Misc. 2d 898 · New York Court of Claims · Oct 29, 1978

conduct subjected the plaintiff to a deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Federal Constitution and laws. … The affidavit submitted in support of the motion in this court clearly alleges wrongs committed by both Prajka and Strum. Nevertheless, the jury found only against Prajka.

Parmerter v. State

36 Misc. 3d 639 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 29, 2012

That arguable duty for maintenance and repair is not only significant in its own right, but also in assessing whether the qualified immunity that might otherwise have attached to the State’s initial highway design determinations … Further, claimants’ submissions fail to establish as a matter of law that discretionary immunity for the DOT’s initial design and reconstruction of the site would not attach, or that the State would continue to be responsible

Claim of Torres v. State

3 Misc. 2d 590 · New York Court of Claims · Apr 20, 1956

The State, however, has waived immunity from liability and consented to have its liability determined in accordance with the same rules of law as apply to actions in the Supreme Court against individuals or corporations, … It is difficult to see how the committee under these circumstances could formulate a claim with sufficient clarity to clearly establish the issues to be tried in this court.