Carney v. City of Utica
| Decision Date | 10 March 1989 |
| Citation | 148 A.D.2d 927,539 N.Y.S.2d 165 |
| Parties | Jody E. CARNEY and Michelle Carney, Appellants, v. CITY OF UTICA, New York: Guy Fraccola, individually and as a deputy chief of police of the City of Utica, New York, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lockwood & Golden by Stephen Lockwood, Utica, for appellants.
Armand J. Festine, Corp. Counsel by John P. Orilio, Utica, for respondents.
Before DILLON, P.J., and BOOMER, GREEN, PINE and DAVIS, JJ.
In this action against the City of Utica and several of its police officers, Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants dismissing plaintiff's claims for punitive damages. Relying on Myers v. City of Rochester, 116 Misc.2d 83, 455 N.Y.S.2d 188, the court found that the city was the real party in interest by virtue of its indemnity obligation, and that the municipality was immune from claims for punitive damages (see, Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332, 452 N.Y.S.2d 347, 437 N.E.2d 1104).
The court correctly dismissed the punitive damages claims against the city, but the immunity of the municipality does not extend to the individual police officers (see, Kelly v. Kane, 98 A.D.2d 861, 863, 470 N.Y.S.2d 816; La Mar v. Town of Greece, 97 A.D.2d 955, 956, 468 N.Y.S.2d 744; Miller v. City of Rensselaer, 94 A.D.2d 862, 863, 463 N.Y.S.2d 589). We reinstate the punitive damages claims against the individual defendants on those causes of action left undisturbed by Supreme Court.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staudacher v. City of Buffalo
...individual police officers (see, Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332, 338, 452 N.Y.S.2d 347, 437 N.E.2d 1104; Carney v. City of Utica, 148 A.D.2d 927, 539 N.Y.S.2d 165). The charge and verdict sheet failed to separate the claims for punitive damages on each cause of action and for eac......
-
Saulpaugh v. Diehl
... ... demand is misplaced because the letter does not constitute a clear and explicit refusal (see, City of New York v. State of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 659, 670, 389 N.Y.S.2d 332, 357 N.E.2d 988; Matter of ... ...
-
Rosen & Bardunias v. County of Westchester, 1
...Officers Law § 18[4][b], [c], but, rather, will be personally liable for any punitive damages assessed against him (Carney v. City of Utica, 148 A.D.2d 927, 539 N.Y.S.2d 165; Kelly v. Kane, 98 A.D.2d 861, 470 N.Y.S.2d 816; Miller v. City of Rensselaer, 94 A.D.2d 862, 463 N.Y.S.2d 589). In t......
- Great Lakes Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Cam-Ful Industries, Inc., CAM-FUL