MARK G., ET AL., APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, v. BARBARA J. SABOL, &C., ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. --------------------------------- MARTIN A., ET AL.,
APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, V. BARBARA J. SABOL, &C., ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. --------------------------------- DAKINYA B., &C., ET
AL., APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, V. BARBARA J. SABOL, &C., ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. --------------------------------- FRANCES F., ET AL.,
APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, V. BARBARA J. SABOL, &C., ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
99 N.Y. Int. 0124.
August 31, 1999
1 No. 96
(99 NY Int. 0124)
Decided August 31, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Robert Goodman, for appellants-respondents.
Fay Ng, for respondents-appellants.
ROSENBLATT, J.:
This appeal involves actions against New York City child welfare
officials. Plaintiffs are eleven children (and the estate of a
twelfth) from four families. They assert that they were dependent upon
defendants' child welfare system and that they suffered abuse or
neglect in their homes or foster homes. These actions were originally
part of a proposed class action suit seeking injunctive relief and
damages. Plaintiffs, however, withdrew their claims against the State,
along with their request for class certification and injunctive
relief. In seeking to hold defendants liable under the remaining
claims, plaintiffs in a series of complaints have asserted multiple
causes of action under a variety of theories.
At issue before us is the resolution of defendants' motions,
denominated as motions for summary judgment. They are more
appropriately characterized as motions to dismiss the pleadings for
failure to state a cause of action. Despite contrary nomenclature, the
courts below in actuality addressed plaintiffs' allegations in that
context, as do we ( see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268,
274-275).
SNIPPETS:
MARTIN A., ET AL., APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, V. BARBARA J. SABOL, &C., ET AL.,
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
This appeal involves actions against New York City child welfare officials.
They assert that they were dependent upon defendants' child welfare system and that they
Plaintiffs, however, withdrew their claims against the State, along with their request for
In seeking to hold defendants liable under the remaining claims, plaintiffs in a series of
Plaintiffs make claims for money damages under two distinct Titles of this law: Title 4 of
Title 4 of Article 6 of the Social Services Law
"delineate and implement a State policy of permanent homes for children who are currently in
The Legislature declared its intention to implement Title 4 by providing added funding for
It also amended related Titles to establish utilization review standards for increased
As Senator Pisani's sponsoring memorandum makes clear, the provisions of Title 4 were enacted
Allocations of money and government resources would be rechanneled, no longer to be based on
This enactment was one of several legislative initiatives to counter the breakdown in the
We conclude that plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded a violation of procedural due
Three United States Supreme Court cases are critical to our treatment of this issue.
Plaintiffs commenced this litigation employing an array of claims designed to address
the parties have addressed the viability of the so-called common law tort causes of action.
|
