FULLER v. STATE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Danny FULLER, Claimant-Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: October 21, 2004

TOM, J.P., SULLIVAN, WILLIAMS, LERNER, SWEENY, JJ. Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP, New York (Sherwin A. Suss of counsel), for appellant. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Denise A. Hartman of counsel), for respondent.

Order, State of New York, Court of Claims (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered September 16, 2003, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimant failed to establish the grounds for a constitutional tort (see Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78, 735 N.Y.S.2d 868, 761 N.E.2d 560 [2001];  cf. Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 674 N.E.2d 1129 [1996] ).   Furthermore, the State is not subject to liability in the Court of Claims for the consequences of official acts of a district attorney, under a theory of respondent superior, because he is not an officer or employee of the State (Fisher v. State of New York, 10 N.Y.2d 60, 217 N.Y.S.2d 52, 176 N.E.2d 72 [1961];  see Court of Claims Act § 9[2] ).