Morris v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris v. State

71 A.D.3d 492, 897 N.Y.S.2d 59

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 492 (Morris 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

Morris v. State, 71 A.D.3d 492, 897 N.Y.S.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered January 15, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion to preclude claimant from litigating the amount of compensatory damages on the claims asserted and limited claimant’s potential recovery of compensatory damages to the amount awarded in a prior federal court action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

There is no identity of issues between those claims litigated and dismissed against former Correction Officer Eversley in a federal action relating to injuries allegedly resulting from his sexual assault (see Morris v Eversley, 282 F Supp 2d 196 [SD NY 2003]) and those the claimant seeks to litigate against the State in the instant action. Claimant now alleges injuries that are separate and distinct from those inflicted by Eversley (see CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v Samuel Montagu & Co. Ltd., 25 AD3d 492 [2006]; Jordan v Bates Adv. Holdings, 292 AD2d 205 [2002]), including that the State subjected her to injury by failing to remove Eversley from his position following her complaint, by failing to promptly investigate her claim, and by transferring her to another prison, as well as the claim that the State’s negligent training and supervision of Eversley resulted in a pattern of ongoing harassment and intimidation leading up [493]*493to and following the actual sexual assault. Although claimant offered testimony in the federal action as to the conduct of the State, the federal court explicitly charged the jury to compensate claimant only for injuries she sustained as a direct consequence of Eversley’s conduct, and there is no basis to conclude that the jury considered in its award the amount by which claimant may have been damaged as a result of the State’s alleged misconduct. Concur-Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered January 15, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion to preclude claimant from litigating the amount of compensatory damages on the claims asserted and limited claimant’s potential recovery of compensatory damages to the amount awarded in a prior federal court action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

There is no identity of issues between those claims litigated and dismissed against former Correction Officer Eversley in a federal action relating to injuries allegedly resulting from his sexual assault (see Morris v Eversley, 282 F Supp 2d 196 [SD NY 2003]) and those the claimant seeks to litigate against the State in the instant action. Claimant now alleges injuries that are separate and distinct from those inflicted by Eversley (see CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v Samuel Montagu & Co. Ltd., 25 AD3d 492 [2006]; Jordan v Bates Adv. Holdings, 292 AD2d 205 [2002]), including that the State subjected her to injury by failing to remove Eversley from his position following her complaint, by failing to promptly investigate her claim, and by transferring her to another prison, as well as the claim that the State’s negligent training and supervision of Eversley resulted in a pattern of ongoing harassment and intimidation leading up [493]*493to and following the actual sexual assault. Although claimant offered testimony in the federal action as to the conduct of the State, the federal court explicitly charged the jury to compensate claimant only for injuries she sustained as a direct consequence of Eversley’s conduct, and there is no basis to conclude that the jury considered in its award the amount by which claimant may have been damaged as a result of the State’s alleged misconduct. Concur-Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 492, 897 N.Y.S.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack