From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. Coulter

Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady County
Jul 31, 1974
78 Misc. 2d 730 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1974)

Opinion

July 31, 1974

Lamb Wilkin ( Medwin McMahon of counsel), for defendant.

Grasso Grasso ( Alexander Grasso of counsel), for plaintiff.


This is a motion by defendant to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the action, the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and the court does not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Plaintiff has commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries as the result of a collision between his automobile and a vehicle operated by the defendant and owned by the State of New York. It is defendant's contention that since the defendant was an employee of the State engaged in operating a vehicle owned by the State at the time of the accident, the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction of plaintiff's cause of action.

There is recent authority which allows actions against State employees based on negligence to be brought in the Supreme Court ( Clark v. Cannizzarro, 37 A.D.2d 634; Passamonte v. Petit, 61 Misc.2d 124). Defendant argues that these cases are no longer viable because of the enactment of section 17 Pub. Off. of the Public Officers Law, effective July 2, 1971. That statute states the conditions under which officers and employees may be indemnified from financial loss arising out of claims, suits or judgments by reason of alleged negligence when the employees were acting within the scope of their employment when the damages were sustained.

This section does not abrogate plaintiff's right to sue a State employee for negligence in the Supreme Court. Subdivision 4 of the section provides: "The benefits of this section shall inure only to officers and employees of the state and shall not enlarge or diminish the rights of any other party."

If the Legislature had intended that claims for negligence against State employees be brought exclusively in the Court of Claims, it could easily have provided therefor.

The motion of the defendant to dismiss plaintiff's complaint is denied, without costs.


Summaries of

Sutton v. Coulter

Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady County
Jul 31, 1974
78 Misc. 2d 730 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1974)
Case details for

Sutton v. Coulter

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD M. SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD M. COULTER, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady County

Date published: Jul 31, 1974

Citations

78 Misc. 2d 730 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1974)
358 N.Y.S.2d 333

Citing Cases

Olmstead v. Britton

Prior to the enactment of that statute State employees were subject to suit in the Supreme Court for their…

Lapidot v. State

As previously mentioned above, there is no question on this motion but that claimant would be covered by the…