Fuller v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller v. State

11 A.D.3d 365, 783 N.Y.S.2d 370

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2004

DocketClaim No. 107483

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 365 (Fuller v. State) 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

Fuller v. State, 11 A.D.3d 365, 783 N.Y.S.2d 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[366]*366Order, 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 NY2d 78 [2001]; cf. Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 [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 respondeat superior, because he is not an officer or employee of the State (Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60 [1961]; see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[366]*366Order, 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 NY2d 78 [2001]; cf. Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 [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 respondeat superior, because he is not an officer or employee of the State (Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60 [1961]; see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 365, 783 N.Y.S.2d 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-state-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack