Carney v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carney v. City of Utica

148 A.D.2d 927, 539 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2556

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 10, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 927 (Carney v. City of Utica) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carney v. City of Utica, 148 A.D.2d 927, 539 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action against the City of Utica and several of its police officers, Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants dismissing plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages. Relying on Myers v City of Rochester (116 Mise 2d 83), the court found that the city was [928]*928the real party in interest by virtue of its indemnity obligation, and that the municipality was immune from claims for punitive damages (see, Sharapata v Town of Islip, 56 NY2d 332).

The court correctly dismissed the punitive damages claims against the city, but the immunity of the municipality does not extend to the individual police officers (see, Kelly v Kane, 98 AD2d 861, 863; La Mar v Town of Greece, 97 AD2d 955, 956; Miller v City of Rensselaer, 94 AD2d 862, 863). We reinstate the punitive damages claims against the individual defendants on those causes of action left undisturbed by Supreme Court. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, O’Donnell, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action against the City of Utica and several of its police officers, Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants dismissing plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages. Relying on Myers v City of Rochester (116 Mise 2d 83), the court found that the city was [928]*928the real party in interest by virtue of its indemnity obligation, and that the municipality was immune from claims for punitive damages (see, Sharapata v Town of Islip, 56 NY2d 332).

The court correctly dismissed the punitive damages claims against the city, but the immunity of the municipality does not extend to the individual police officers (see, Kelly v Kane, 98 AD2d 861, 863; La Mar v Town of Greece, 97 AD2d 955, 956; Miller v City of Rensselaer, 94 AD2d 862, 863). We reinstate the punitive damages claims against the individual defendants on those causes of action left undisturbed by Supreme Court. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, O’Donnell, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 927, 539 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carney-v-city-of-utica-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack