LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEBASTIAN v STATE OF NEW YORK Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: SEBASTIAN, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I99_0139, York, Ny2d, Act, Juvenile, Escape, Proprietor, Facility, Negligence, Supra, Juvenile Delinquent, Publication, Dfy Facility, Tort Liability, Protection, Placement, Respondent, Chadderdon, Family Court, City, Appellate, Injuries, Youth, Adjudications, Secure, Community, Claimants, Supervision, Ordinary Tort Liability, Williams , ContentID: 120251742

Case Documents
1 1999-10-21 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125651
5 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 5 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
NY2D
ACT
JUVENILE
COURT
ESCAPE
PROPRIETOR
FACILITY
NEGLIGENCE
SUPRA
JUVENILE DELINQUENT
PUBLICATION
DFY FACILITY
TORT LIABILITY
PROTECTION
PLACEMENT
RESPONDENT
CHADDERDON
FAMILY COURT
CITY
APPELLATE
INJURIES
YOUTH
ADJUDICATIONS
SECURE
COMMUNITY
CLAIMANTS
SUPERVISION
ORDINARY TORT LIABILITY
WILLIAMS


  ANTHONY SEBASTIAN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT.

    93 N.Y.2d 790 (1999).
    October 21, 1999

   4 No. 141

   (99 NY Int. 0139)
   Decided October 21, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Shawn W. Carey, for appellants.
   Michael S. Buskus, for respondent.

   BELLACOSA, J.:

   The issue on this appeal is whether the State may be held liable in
   negligence for injuries inflicted by a juvenile delinquent who escaped
   from a Division for Youth (DFY) facility. To resolve the question,
   this Court must consider whether the State's alleged negligence arose
   out of the performance of a governmental, rather than a proprietary,
   function. We affirm the order that upheld the ruling in favor of the
   State.

   Daniel Chadderdon was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in July 1992.
   He was ordered by a Family Court Judge to be placed in the custody of
   the DFY, pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 352.2 and 353.2.
   Chadderdon was initially confined in a secure DFY facility, "which is
   characterized by physically restricting construction, hardware and
   procedures" (Executive Law § 504-a). In 1994, as the first step
   towards transition into the community, Chadderdon was transferred to a
   limited secure facility in Rochester; next, he was sent to a
   non-secure facility in Binghamton in July 1995. He escaped from the
   latter placement, and the State immediately issued a warrant for his
   apprehension. Approximately one month after the escape, Chadderdon
   robbed and assaulted a taxicab driver, claimant Sebastian. Chadderdon
   was arrested for this crime in August 1995. Following his conviction
   for attempted murder in the second degree and other serious felonies,
   he was sentenced as an adult criminal to 7 1/3 to 22 years
   imprisonment.

   In February 1997, after recovering from severe injuries and reviewing
SNIPPETS:
  • RESPONDENT.
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • The issue on this appeal is whether the State may be held liable in negligence for injuries
  • To resolve the question, this Court must consider whether the State's alleged negligence
  • He was ordered by a Family Court Judge to be placed in the custody of the DFY, pursuant to
  • Chadderdon was initially confined in a secure DFY facility, "which is characterized by
  • In 1994, as the first step towards transition into the community, Chadderdon was transferred
  • The proposed claim alleged that Sebastian's injuries resulted from the State's negligence in
  • It reasoned that the claim arose out of the State's performance of a governmental function
  • Their appeal, as of right to this Court, is based on a two-Justice dissent at the Appellate
  • This Court has recognized that a "governmental entity's conduct may fall along a continuum of
  • At one end of the continuum lie purely governmental functions "undertaken for the protection
  • On the opposite periphery lie proprietary functions in which governmental activities
  • For instance, the State may act in its proprietary capacity as a landlord by virtue of its
  • the allegations center on the State's supervision of the adjudicated juvenile and its efforts
  • Claimants suggest that this qualifies for a proprietary classification.
  • The placement of juvenile delinquents in such public institutions is effected by court order
  • That the State may be subject to ordinary tort liability for negligently permitting the
  • The State "functions in the public interest as proprietor and operator of a number of
  • The parties in Williams did not argue -- and that case does not address -- the State's
  • The allowance of ordinary tort liability against the State for the injuries resulting from
  •    |