Opinion
# 2014-049-020 Claim No. 123841 Motion No. M-84690
04-30-2014
ELSADA WILSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Lutfy & Lutfy, P.C. By: Frances T. Lutfy, Esq. Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim making allegations against an employee of the Queens County District Attorney's Office was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-049-020 |
| Claimant(s): | ELSADA WILSON |
| Claimant short name: | WILSON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123841 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84690 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DAVID A. WEINSTEIN |
| Claimant's attorney: | Lutfy & Lutfy, P.C. By: Frances T. Lutfy, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 30, 2014 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant Elsada Wilson filed this claim on January 27, 2014, alleging that on October 31, 2013 she was injured as a result of an automobile collision. The claim is set forth on a "Personal Injury Claim Form" created by the New York City Comptroller, and the driver of the other vehicle is identified on an appended police report as an employee of the Queens County District Attorney's Office. The claim makes no reference to any action by the State of New York or its agents.
On February 20, 2014, the State of New York moved to dismiss this claim, on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim, since employees of the Queens District Attorney's Office are not state employees.
Claimant opposes the motion through the affirmation of her counsel. That affirmation acknowledges that the case arises out of an accident involving claimant and "a motor vehicle titled to the Queens District Attorney" (Aff. in Opp. ¶ 3). Claimant's counsel further notes that Wilson filed a Notice of Claim against the City of New York and Queens District Attorney in addition to the claim against the State, and indicates that the present action was commenced "to protect our client's interest and the limited time frame in which to file a Claim" (id.).
Claimant's counsel concedes in his affirmation that "district attorneys are generally deemed local officers . . . generally rendering the State an improper party" in this Court (id. ¶ 4). He argues, however, that the caselaw "recognize[s] that in certain instances the State is indeed a proper party when the offending acts are those of a District Attorney" (id.). For this proposition, he cites Fishbein v State of New York, (282 App Div 600 [3d Dept 1953]) and Ritter v State of New York, (283 App Div 833 [3d Dept 1954]), along with two trial court decisions. These opinions, however, are of no aid to Wilson. Fishbein specifically rejected the claim that a county probation officer was an employee of the State (282 App Div at 602-603), while Ritter found that an assistant district attorney did not "act[] as a State officer or employee for whose torts the State is liable" (283 App Div at 834).
True, these cases can be read to have left open - without addressing - the possibility that a county officer might be a state officer for some unspecified purpose (see Fishbein, 282 App Div at 603 ["There may be other situations where, in the exercise of strictly probationary duties, [a county probation officer] might be classified as a State officer"]; Ritter, 283 App Div at 834 ["historically a District Attorney may have been considered a part of the judicial system of the State in connection with some of his duties and while in the performance of some of his official functions he may be acting on behalf of the People of the State . . ."]). To the extent that is so, the issue was definitively settled by the Court of Appeals in Fisher v State of New York, (10 NY2d 60 [1961]). In that case, the Court held that a District Attorney "does not act as a State officer or employee in any . . . sense as would make the State liable for his wrongdoing" (id. at 61). In the wake of that holding "[t]he rule that an Assistant District Attorney is not a State officer for whose tortious acts the State may be held liable, but is rather a local officer for whose torts the State is not responsible, is so well established that no discussion is necessary" (Whitmore v State of New York, 55 AD2d 745, 746 [3d Dept 1976]).
The two trial court cases relied upon by claimant are entirely consistent with this principle. The first,
Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction over this claim. Defendant's motion no. M-84690 is therefore granted, and claim no. 123841 is hereby dismissed.
April 30, 2014
Albany, New York
DAVID A. WEINSTEIN
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support and annexed exhibit.
2. Claimant's Affirmation in Opposition.
People v Fuller, (156 Misc 404 [Ct of Gen Sessions, NY County 1935]), is a criminal case that makes no reference to the Court of Claims or its jurisdiction. The second, Zimmerman v City of New York, (52 Misc 2d 797 [Sup Ct, NY County 1966]) concerned the liability of New York City and County for the actions of the District Attorney, and addressed the State's liability in passing only, citing Fisher for the proposition that a district attorney "does not act as a State officer or employee in any such sense as would make the State liable for his wrongdoing" (id. at 799).