Eiseman v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 1987 |
| Parties | , 511 N.E.2d 1128, 41 Ed. Law Rep. 275 Jacob EISEMAN, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Rhona Eiseman, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
This appeal from a negligence award focuses on the duty of the State, when an ex-felon with a history of drug abuse and criminal conduct, upon release from prison, is accepted into a special State college program for the disadvantaged, and thereafter rapes and murders a fellow student. We conclude that the State's alleged negligence involved no breach of duty owed to decedent, and the award to her estate must therefore be overturned.
Charged in three indictments with attempted murder, attempted assault, robbery, larceny, and criminal possession of weapons and drugs, on June 29, 1972, Larry Campbell--then 30 years old--pleaded guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs in the fourth degree in satisfaction of all the charges, and received a maximum prison sentence of six years. Campbell remained incarcerated at various correctional facilities until he was conditionally released on December 19, 1975--the statutorily mandated release date, calculated by applying both his "good behavior time" (see, Correction Law § 803, former § 805 []; Penal Law § 70.30[4]; § 70.40[1][b] ) 1 and his "jail time", or time served awaiting trial (see, Penal Law § 70.30[3] ). Although a longtime heroin addict with a string of arrests, pleas and periods of incarceration for stealing and drug-related crimes beginning a decade or more earlier, this was Campbell's first extended prison confinement.
During his incarceration Campbell was at various times treated for mental disorders, and numerous psychiatric, psychological and parole evaluations were prepared. He was diagnosed as suffering from chronic schizophrenia, paranoid type, with a schizoid, impulsive/explosive personality, a high criminal potential, and a low rehabilitati potential; he was said to have a potential for killing, and was characterized as antisocial, tempermental, belligerent, unpredictable and disruptive, with a guarded prognosis. In his day-to-day prison life, Campbell apparently was comparatively well behaved. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being the best inmate), the Superintendent of the Auburn Correctional Facility--claimants' witness--graded Campbell at 2 1/2. He described Campbell as annoyingly litigious, but observed that he had few disciplinary infractions, none of a "serious" nature, and that he had participated in prison programs and pursued educational opportunities. While at Clinton Correctional Facility, Campbell obtained a high school equivalency diploma, and while at Eastern Correctional Facility took college-level courses. 2
Anticipating release, on January 20, 1975, Campbell applied for admission to the SEEK (Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge) program at the State University College at Buffalo (the College), to begin September 1975. His application revealed his then residence at Albion Correctional Facility as well as prior incarceration elsewhere, and it was supported by several recommendations.
SEEK, created by the Legislature approximately 20 years ago, is part of a State-wide program conducted by public and private colleges and universities, to offer the opportunity for higher education to disadvantaged high school graduates (see, Education Law § 6451 et seq.; see also, Mem of Senator Earl W. Brydges, 1970 N.Y.Legis.Ann., at 168-170). The statutory criteria for acceptance into the SEEK program are economic and educational--a high school diploma or its equivalent; the potential for completing a postsecondary program; and economic and educational disadvantage (Education Law § 6451[1] ). The SEEK director at the College testified that applications there were evaluated solely on these three statutory criteria, and not on an applicant's prior criminal record or prior psychological history. Those admitted to the program were furnished tuition, room and board, and a stipend. Additionally, the statute provided for remedial courses and academic counseling.
As part of the acceptance package, the College sent Campbell a printed form entitled "Health Report and Physician's Certificate", a portion of it for completion by the prospective student and a portion by an examining physician. The purpose of this form was undisputedly to enable the College to offer follow-up care for its student, not as an admissions criterion. John P. Fernandez, a doctor at the Albion Correctional Facility, on May 12, 1975, completed the "Physical Examination" portion of the form. In response to the question, "Is there any evidence of any anxiety or other tension states or emotional instability?", Dr. Fernandez wrote, "No". In the portion of the form for the prospective student, the question, "Have you ever been under the care of a psychiatrist?", was left unanswered. Campbell's completed health report nowhere disclosed that he had been a heroin addict, or that he had a history of mental disorders, including several suicide attempts.
On July 22, 1975, Campbell left his temporary release job outside the prison, made an unauthorized trip into Buffalo, and was disciplined by the loss of "good time" and transfer from Albion (a low security facility) to Auburn Correctional Facility. While awaiting transfer, and after parole and early release had been denied, Campbell attempted suicide. He was sent to Fishkill Correctional Facility, from which he was admitted to Matteawan State Hospital for examination and treatment, and thereafter discharged back to the general prison population. From Fishkill, Campbell wrote to his SEEK counselor at the College, telling him of the suicide attempt and of his problems in prison. Campbell's request for a leave of absence was granted by the Colleg and he was advised that he would be expected for the spring semester.
On December 19, 1975 Campbell was conditionally released from prison. There is no indication that at the time of his release Campbell was addicted to drugs or in need of any treatment; no psychiatric treatment or medication was specified, and no special conditions were added to the printed "Conditions of Parole", which included supervision by a parole officer. During the spring semester, Campbell lived on campus and attended classes, and--despite an incident when he was visiting his mother in New York City during April 1976--was seemingly making a satisfactory adjustment at the College. His parole officer, testifying for claimants, said he regarded Campbell as a "high risk" case, and therefore placed him under "intensive supervision," meaning that he advised the SEEK liaison about Campbell, required biweekly visits and a curfew, worked closely with campus security, who the parole officer told to "let [him] know if Campbell sneezes", and checked on him during on-campus visits one or more times a week. During the spring semester Campbell arranged to continue attending classes for the summer and to live with the son of his SEEK counselor, a fellow student.
At the College, Campbell befriended Rhona Eiseman, Thomas Tunney, Teresa Beynard--all fellow students--and Michael Schostick, a nonstudent. Eiseman, Tunney, Beynard and Schostick shared an off-campus apartment. On June 9, 1976, at the apartment, Campbell murdered Tunney, raped and murdered Eiseman, and inflicted serious injuries on Schostick. Eiseman's estate and Schostick commenced suit claiming negligence on the part of the State in its release of Campbell, in failing to advise the College of his medical history, in admitting him to the College without appropriate inquiry, and in failing adequately to supervise him. The Court of Claims after trial dismissed Schostick's claim, on the ground that neither a duty of care nor a chain of causation linked the State to his injuries, but it held the State liable for Eiseman's death on two of the several theories propounded by claimants: that the State was negligent when its agent, the prison physician, failed to inform the College and its students of Campbell's medical history, and that the College was negligent in admitting him or failing to restrict his activity in accordance with the risk he presented, both of which were a proximate cause of injury. The Appellate Division affirmed. This court denied Schostick's motion for leave to appeal and, following a trial to assess damages, granted the State's motion. We now reverse the award and dismiss the claim.
At the outset, it is helpful in narrowing the discussion to summarize certain matters resolved below relating to Campbell's release from prison and supervision while at liberty.
Although claimants initially cited Campbell's release as an act of negligence by the State, in fact his release from prison was required by law and was not an act upon which the State could be found negligent. As the Appellate Division noted "The trial court correctly found that Campbell's release was statutorily mandated (Penal Law § 70.40[1][b]; Correction Law §§ 803, 805) and that the Department of Correctional Services was without authority to deny Campbell's request for conditional release". (109 A.D.2d 46, 57, 489 N.E.2d 957.) Indeed, claimants no longer dispute that Campbell was entitled to release on December 19, 1975.
Similarly determined against claimants by the trial court, and affirmed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fontaine v. Ryan
...Pulka, 390 N.Y.S.2d at 395, 358 N.E.2d at 1020. The court ordinarily decides whether a duty exists. Eiseman v. State, 70 N.Y.2d 175, 518 N.Y.S.2d 608, 613, 511 N.E.2d 1128, 1134 (1987); De Angelis, 462 N.Y.S.2d at 628, 449 N.E.2d 408. Plaintiff says Pinkerton's duty to protect her stems fro......
-
Andrulonis v. US
...by which plaintiff or a third party is misled, resulting in injury or damage to plaintiff." Eiseman v. State, 70 N.Y.2d 175, 187, 518 N.Y.S.2d 608, 614, 511 N.E.2d 1128, 1135 (1987). A plaintiff can recover for personal injuries as well as economic damages if such injuries were causally rel......
-
Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P.
...the plaintiff, courts look to morality, logic, and the social consequences of imposing the duty. Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 175, 518 N.Y.S.2d 608, 511 N.E.2d 1128, 1134 (1987). New York law supports the view that the owners and operators of airport terminals have a duty to safe......
-
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, CV-95-0049 (JBW).
...defendants that may destroy their ability to deliver socially useful services. See, e.g., Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 175, 188, 511 N.E.2d 1128, 1135, 518 N.Y.S.2d 608, 614 (1987) (declining to extend prison physician's duty to accurately relate prisoner's medical history to ind......
-
Beware of plaintiffs' new uses of old tort theories to avoid product identification.
...Court of Appeals accepted the certified questions on September 12, 2000 (2000 WL 1288342). (23.) Id. at 824. (24.) Eiseman v. New York, 511 N.E.2d 1128, 1135 (N.Y. 1987) (citations and quotations (25.) R.I. GEN. LAWS [sections] 6-13.1-2 (1992). See also CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE [sections]......