Nadal v. State

110 A.D.2d 890, 488 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48794
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 890 (Nadal 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
Nadal v. State, 110 A.D.2d 890, 488 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinions

[891]*891On October 29, 1982, four inmates from the Otisville prison facility were assigned to work under the supervision of a corrections officer in a park near a residential community. Claimants allege that the officer allowed two inmates, a convicted burglar and a convicted robber, to wander off. The prisoners took the opportunity to break into claimants’ home, where they stole jewelry and other property. The claimants were not at home at the time and, as the property was subsequently recovered, no claim is made for either property damage or direct physical injury. Claimants seek to recover solely for psychological damage “by reason of the violation of [their] privacy and of the privacy of [their] home such that [they have] an uncontrollable fear of being in [their] home alone” or “of returning to [their] home when the home is empty”.

It is not necessary to pass upon claimants’ contention that the State owed a duty to nearby community residents to protect against foreseeable crimes committed by inmates who were either negligently or intentionally permitted to wander off at liberty, in view of the fact that the claimed consequential emotional injuries are not compensable under New York law (Kennedy v McKesson Co., 58 NY2d 500; Tobin v Grossman, 24 NY2d 609). While the invasion of the sanctity of claimants’ home was understandably emotionally shocking, such injuries are compensable only when they are a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach of a duty (Kennedy v McKesson Co., supra). Bracken, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sawitsky v. State of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Taggart v. Costabile
131 A.D.3d 243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Madden v. Creative Services, Inc.
872 F. Supp. 1205 (W.D. New York, 1993)
Hare v. State
173 A.D.2d 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Ace v. State
146 Misc. 2d 954 (New York State Court of Claims, 1990)
Hare v. State
143 Misc. 2d 281 (New York State Court of Claims, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 A.D.2d 890, 488 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadal-v-state-nyappdiv-1985.