Case law

Halatas v. State

43 Misc. 2d 260 · New York Court of Claims · Feb 7, 1964

Section 8-a of the Court of Claims Act provides, in part, for a waiver of immunity by the State for torts committed by members of the militia in the “ operation, maintenance and control of armories devoted to the use of the … It has *262 long been established that “ Statutes in derogation of the sovereignty of a state must be strictly construed and a waiver of immunity from liability must be clearly expressed.” (Smith v.

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.

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)".

Ward Telecommunications & Computer Services, Inc. v. State

83 Misc. 2d 331 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 20, 1975

"The examiners’ report rather carried with it the protection of qualified or conditional privilege.” It has been held that the defense of qualified privilege must be pleaded and proved. … However, I have come to the conclusion when, on claimant’s direct case, it was established that the libel emanated from an official audit report, the State’s right to the protection of a qualified privilege was established

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)".

Marston v. State

41 Misc. 3d 725 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 7, 2012

“A motion for summary judgment should be entertained only after the moving party has established, by competent admissible evidence, that it is entitled *727 to judgment as a matter of law. … Clearly Harbison was navigating, as that term is construed in the applicable case law previously noted, in the Hudson River at the time the accident occurred.

Town of New Lebanon v. State

14 Misc. 310 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 15, 1920

The board was authorized to establish rules as to the forms and methods of procedure before it. … chapter 692 of the Laws of 1906 the terms of the judges then in office were extended ten years from the date of the act, and it was provided that they should continue in office until their successors were appointed and qualified

Nicholson v. State

23 Misc. 3d 313 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 15, 2008

“In opposition to a motion for summary judgment a *318 party must assemble and lay bare affirmative proof to establish that genuine material issues of fact exist. … The State, to implement the Federal program and further its expressed purpose, established an elaborate program, supplemented by regulations of the Commissioner, to identify qualifying students and their needs, to review

Johnson v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 25284 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 11, 2025

But inasmuch as defendant has failed to argue—let alone establish—on the motion to dismiss that Ryan was not covered by the FLSA after his retirement from DHSES, [FN5] and no record before the [*4]Court exists upon which … with respect to FLSA claims accruing earlier than six months before filing of claim due to time limitations of CCA § 10 (4), upon which waiver of such immunity was conditioned]).

Joyner-Pack v. State

38 Misc. 3d 903 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 3, 2012

Under the terms of the proposed ICO, the costs of claimant’s future medical care and other qualifying costs would be paid for out of the New York State Medical Indemnity Fund (the MIF or Fund), established in chapter 59 of … Put generally, the MIF is supported by a state appropriation, and pays the “qualifying health care costs” of “qualified plaintiffs.”

Ast v. State

123 Misc. 2d 200 · New York Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1984

The doctrine of limited immunity for such acts espoused by Weiss v Fote ( 7 NY2d 579 ) has no application here. … Therefore, the qualified immunity afforded by section 1104 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law need not be addressed. .

Doe v. State

159 Misc. 2d 83 · New York Court of Claims · Aug 6, 1993

a remedy when the petitioner has established a right to relief. … The article further clearly contemplates that qualified insurance companies issue and make the periodic payments arising under CPLR article 50-B (see, e.g., CPLR 5042).

Dow v. State

183 Misc. 674 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 16, 1944

She is clearly entitled to an award because upon the record before us no finding can be made other than to charge the State with negligence. … The waiver of immunity from liability granted by an enlightened Legislature in 1929 has received favorable interpretation and judicial sanction.

Campbell v. State

186 Misc. 586 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 17, 1946

By this statute, the State waived its immunity from liability and jurisdiction was conferred upon this court to hear, audit and determine the claim of claimant against the State for damages sustained as a result of and in … He is clearly entitled to substantial additional damages. The amount is not easy to determine. The prior cases upon that question are of little value in fixing the amount.

Doe v. State

155 Misc. 2d 286 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 26, 1992

Moreover, public entities remain immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of their governmental functions, including police protection, unless the injured person establishes a special relationship with … But this immunity claim was not developed at trial and not asserted at all in the defendant’s posttrial brief.

Mickle v. New York State Thruway Authority

182 Misc. 2d 967 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 7, 1999

Al *972 though such duty is nondelegable, the law is nevertheless settled that in the field of highway design engineering a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning is accorded (Friedman v State … However, under the doctrine of qualified immunity “a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” (Friedman v State

St. Regis Tribe of Mohawk Indians v. State

4 Misc. 2d 110 · New York Court of Claims · Dec 27, 1956

It is true that under section 8 of the Court of Claims Act the State of New York has waived its sovereign immunity. … That waiver, however, merely applies to areas where before its enactment a definition of sovereign immunity might have been interposed (Fullerton v. City of Schenectady, 285 App. Div. 545 , affd. 309 N.

Firth v. State

184 Misc. 2d 105 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 8, 2000

Claimant argues, at page 8 of his memorandum of law, as follows: “This Claim clearly asserted defamation by virtue of Internet publication as well as paper publication. … The Court further held that even if deemed a publisher, a telephone company would be entitled to a qualified privilege excusing it from liability in the absence of malice or bad faith.

Young Fehlhaber Pile Co. v. State

177 Misc. 204 · New York Court of Claims · Sep 23, 1941

The State admits the facts, but claims immunity under the contract provision relating to the inspection of site and that “ he will make no claim against the State by reason of the estimates, tests or representations of any … It represented to the •bidder and successful contractor a clearly defined physical condition and must be bound by the consequences, however costly and unpleasant they may be.

Ritter v. State

204 Misc. 300 · New York Court of Claims · May 21, 1953

. *302 In any event, it is urged that the District Attorney was acting in a purely governmental capacity, which, it is contended, immunizes the State against liability. … (Italics added.) *303 That the District Attorney is an integral part of the judicial machinery of the State appears clearly from the history of the office (Matter of Lewis v. Carter, 220 N. Y. 8, 13 ).