Barr v. Albany County, 1

• Citation: 50 N.Y.2d 247,428 N.Y.S.2d 665,406 N.E.2d 481
• Decision Date: 08 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 2,1,2
• Parties: , 406 N.E.2d 481 Gerilyn BARR et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALBANY et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (Action) Gerilyn BARR et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ALBANY et al., Defendants, and Henry Bayer et al., Appellants. (Action)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 665

428 N.Y.S.2d 665

50 N.Y.2d 247, 406 N.E.2d 481

Gerilyn BARR et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALBANY et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

(Action No. 1.)

Gerilyn BARR et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ALBANY et al., Defendants, and Henry Bayer et al.,

Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 8, 1980.

Michael J. Cunningham, Albany, for appellants in action no. 1

Kenneth L. Golden, Albany, for respondents in Action No. 1.

Robert P. Roche, Albany, for appellants in Action No. 2.

Michael J. Cunningham, Albany, for respondents in Action No. 2.

Kenneth L. Golden, Albany, for defendants in Action No. 2.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JASEN, Judge.

Framed for our resolution on these appeals is the issue whether a warrant, authorizing the search of certain premises but not the arrest of persons found thereon, affords protection to those obligated to enforce it from liability for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. Should the search warrant afford no such immunity, it becomes necessary to resolve the further issue whether a county can assume liability for the tortious acts of its Deputy Sheriffs. Also presented is the question whether the Sheriff can be held responsible in negligence for failure to train and instruct properly his deputies.

The facts underlying these appeals are not in dispute and may be simply stated. Plaintiffs were attending a private party at premises known as the "Ordway House" in the Town of Rensselaerville, Albany County, during the evening hours on August 14, 1977. At approximately 11:00 p. m., several deputies of the Albany County Sheriff's Department, acting in concert with the New York State Police, participated in a "drug raid" pursuant to a warrant issued by a Town Justice authorizing a search of the premises.

The Deputy Sheriffs arrived at the scene in several vehicles and by means of a prearranged signal, simultaneously converged on the premises and conducted a search. Virtually all of the some 50 persons in attendance, including plaintiffs herein, were arrested and charged with criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree. Most of these persons were then transported to a police substation where they were booked and fingerprinted.

Upon arraignment before the Town Justice who had issued the search warrant, all charges lodged against the plaintiffs were dismissed either upon the court's own motion or upon motion of the District Attorney. Thereafter, plaintiffs commenced these actions to recover damages for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, joining as defendants the County of Albany, the Sheriff of Albany County and the Deputy Sheriffs who participated in the raid and arrests.

Defendants County of Albany and the Sheriff of Albany County moved to dismiss the complaint as against them for failure to state a cause of action and for summary judgment on the merits. Special Term denied the motion, reasoning, as to the county, that the constitutional provision immunizing a county from responsibility for the acts of the Sheriff (N.Y.Const. art. XIII, § 13, subd. (a)) does not extend to the acts of Deputy Sheriffs when the county, by local legislation, assumes responsibility for such acts. With respect to the Sheriff's motion, Special Term ruled that "plaintiffs (should) have the opportunity to establish * * * that the sheriff was guilty of negligence in the appointment, training and supervision of his deputies." (94 Misc.2d 236, at p. 239, 404 N.Y.S.2d 299.) Further, Special Term found that there existed issues of fact which required a plenary trial with respect to such allegation.

On appeal, a unanimous Appellate Division reversed, granted defendants' motion and dismissed the complaints. In so doing, the court reasoned that the State Constitution insulates "counties from money damage suits based on either the civil or criminal misconduct of the Sheriff or his deputies" (69 A.D.2d 914, at p. 915, 415 N.Y.S.2d 471, 473), even if there exists a local law which makes the county liable for the acts of Deputy Sheriffs. Further, the Appellate Division ruled that the Sheriff could not be held liable to plaintiffs inasmuch as "(n)egligence is not an element of false arrest." Plaintiffs appeal to this court, as of right (see CPLR 5601, subd. (a)), from the order of the Appellate Division.

By separate motion, defendants Deputy Sheriffs of Albany County sought summary judgment, contending that the search warrant insulated them from liability for their allegedly tortious conduct. Special Term denied the motion, stating that the "warrant relied upon by the defendants, even if valid, authorized only a search and did not authorize an arrest. Therefore, it would not necessarily constitute a defense to the claim of the plaintiffs." A divided Appellate Division affirmed, and defendants Deputy Sheriffs appeal to this court on a certified question.

For ease of analysis, we will treat initially the contention of defendants Deputy Sheriffs that the courts below improperly denied their motion for summary judgment, for the issue whether the County of Albany can be held responsible for the tortious acts of its Deputy Sheriffs will be rendered academic if this issue is resolved in favor of defendants Deputy Sheriffs. It should be remembered that inasmuch as we are concerned with a motion for summary judgment, the issue is not whether plaintiffs can ultimately establish liability, but, rather, whether there exists a substantial issue of fact in the case on the issue of liability which requires a plenary trial. (See, e. g., Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790, 390 N.E.2d 298; Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223, 231, 413 N.Y.S.2d 141, 385 N.E.2d 1068; see, generally, Siegel, New York Practice, § 278.) If such a question of fact is found to exist, our function is at an end, and we must affirm the dispositions below denying summary judgment to defendants Deputy Sheriffs.

In this case, a substantial question of fact does exist, and defendants' contention that the search warrant issued by the Town Justice insulates them, as a matter of law, from liability must be rejected. ¹ The warrant authorized only the search of the premises, and did not empower the Deputy Sheriffs to arrest those persons found thereon. As this court observed in Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310: "Whenever there has been an arrest and imprisonment without a warrant, the officer has acted extrajudicially and the presumption arises that such an arrest and imprisonment are unlawful * * * (W)here the arrest or imprisonment is extrajudicial, that is, without legal process or color of legal authority, it is not necessary to allege want of probable cause in a false imprisonment action * * * Indeed, the burden is on the defendant to prove the opposite." (Id., at p. 458, 373 N.Y.S.2d at pp. 94-95, 335 N.E.2d at p. 315 (citations omitted).)

Nor can we accept defendants Deputy Sheriffs' contention that these well-settled principles of law are vitiated by the fact that they were acting pursuant to a search warrant. ² While it can be said that a search warrant sanctions the entrance by law enforcement officers upon private property to conduct a search within the confines of the warrant, it by no means lends judicial approval to the arrests of those persons found thereon. A search warrant and an arrest warrant serve distinct functions in the law (compare CPL art. 690, with CPL art. 120) and the protection accorded officers from civil liability for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment when making an arrest pursuant to an arrest warrant (see Smith v. County of Nassau, 34 N.Y.2d 18, 22-23, 355 N.Y.S.2d 349, 311 N.E.2d 489; Ford v. State of New York, 21 A.D.2d 437, 250 N.Y.S.2d 857; cf. Warner v. State of New York, 297 N.Y. 395, 79 N.E.2d 459; see, generally, 22 N.Y.Jur., False Imprisonment, §§ 51, 52) simply does not extend to a situation where, as here, the law enforcement officials made the arrests armed only with a search warrant. (Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310, supra.) In short, a search warrant does not authorize arrest, and the Deputy Sheriffs must be said to have acted extrajudicially.

In light of these principles, issues of fact exist as to whether the Deputy Sheriffs were justified in making the arrests, and, thus, defendants Deputy Sheriffs' motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Holding as we do that summary judgment was properly denied defendants Deputy Sheriffs, it becomes necessary to resolve the further issue whether Albany County can be held responsible for the tortious acts of its Deputy Sheriffs. Resolution of this issue involves the interworkings of the...