From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Preston v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

July 12, 1989

Appeal from the Court of Claims, Margolis, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and claim dismissed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The State appeals from so much of the order of the Court of Claims as denied in part its motion for summary judgment. Claimant cross-appeals from the same order to the extent that it granted partial summary judgment to the State dismissing claimant's claim arising from his indictment, prosecution, conviction and sentencing for assault upon seven individuals. Claimant asserts that he should be permitted to recover for injuries resulting from his own criminal acts and conviction because of the State's medical malpractice in failing to commit him involuntarily. The court was correct in rejecting this claim, because it has long been recognized that a person should not be allowed to recover for his own criminal acts (see, Barker v Kallash, 63 N.Y.2d 19, 24-26; Riggs v Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506). We reject claimant's invitation to liken this claim to those instances where the State has been held responsible for injuries to individuals committed to institutional care (see, e.g., Huntley v State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 134; Calabria v State of New York, 176 Misc. 925, affd 263 App. Div. 1056, affd 289 N.Y. 613; Shattuck v State of New York, 166 Misc. 271, affd 254 App. Div. 926). Further, because of his guilty plea claimant is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from asserting that his psychiatric condition prevented him from perceiving that his conduct was wrongful (see, S.T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 300, 304-305, rearg denied 33 N.Y.2d 658; Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Arzillo, 98 A.D.2d 495, 504-505). At oral argument claimant stated that no claim is being made for injuries unrelated to his criminal activities, thereby rendering moot the issue raised by the State on its direct appeal. Consequently, the order of the Court of Claims should be modified and judgment entered dismissing claimant's claim.


Summaries of

Preston v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Preston v. State

Case Details

Full title:DARYL PRESTON, Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 12, 1989

Citations

152 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Levitt v. Lenox Hill Hospital

The IAS court properly declined to dismiss the bulk of that portion of plaintiff's case challenged by…