GEN. MUT. INS. CO. v. Coyle
| Decision Date | 30 November 1954 |
| Citation | 207 Misc. 362 |
| Parties | General Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>William E. Coyle, Jr., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Joseph A. Cutro of counsel), for Middletown State Hospital, defendant.
Brown, Mangin & Greene for plaintiff.
This is a motion by the Middletown State Hospital to dismiss the complaint herein as to it upon the ground that this court does not have jurisdiction of the moving party.
On or about the 25th day of March, 1954, the plaintiff issued to the defendant William E. Coyle, Jr., a certain policy of insurance by the terms of which it insured certain motor vehicles used in the business pursuits of said Coyle as a trucker. Subsequently, a trailer-tractor unit belonging to Coyle and operated by Holmes was involved in an accident on the public highways of this State by reason of which the other defendants claim to have sustained some injuries. The plaintiff claims there is no coverage under the policy and both Coyle and Holmes claim there is. A declaratory judgment of noncoverage is sought.
The State hospital claims that it is a State agency and as such is immune from action, except insofar as the State has given its consent. The corollary is advanced that the State has not given permission to sue the agency known as Middletown State Hospital either specifically or generally.
At common law, the sovereign was immune from suit. It can only be made a party when it consents and that consent must be clear. (Niagara Falls Power Co. v. White, 292 N.Y. 472.)
The State has consented to being sued in Supreme Court in several instances, notably to determine conflicting claims to real property, partition and foreclosure. Its agents may be proceeded against under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. But it is here claimed that the State has not consented to being sued in an action for a declaratory judgment.
It is equally clear that no action may be maintained against a State officer or agency where the State is the real party in interest. (Samuel Adler, Inc., v. Noyes, 285 N.Y. 34.)
Under section 60 of the Mental Hygiene Law, Middletown State Homeopathic Hospital is established as a corporation. It has been held that the State institutions named in the section are State agencies. (Matter of Hicka, 180 Misc. 173.)
The same case is authority for the contention that no claims may be made against such an agency unless consent has been given therefor.
We come, therefore, to the question as to whether or not the State or its agencies may be sued in Supreme Court in a declaratory judgment action. Section 473 of the Civil Practice Act provides that the Supreme Court shall have power in any action or proceeding to declare rights and other legal relations on request. The procedure is detailed in rules 210-214 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The statute was a liberalizing one, intended to avoid future litigation. It is clearly established that the State may waive its immunity upon such conditions as it may prescribe, but such waiver must be clearly expressed. (Litchfield v. Bond, 186 N.Y. 66; Smith v. State of New York, 227 N.Y. 405.)
This is a motion which seeks a determination purely upon a question of law. It seeks to determine the final relation between the plaintiff, Coyle and Holmes and potentially as to the other defendants. Declaratory judgment proceedings are encouraged under such circumstances, particularly upon contracts of insurance in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and potentially expensive litigation....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State, 24
...general jurisdiction, namely, the Supreme Courts of that State. Consonant herewith, it was stated in General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Coyle, 207 Misc. 362, 364, 136 N.Y.S.2d 43, 45: 'There can be no such action [declaratory judgment action] instituted in the Court of Claims.' Since the court......
-
Condenser Service & Engineering Co. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...124 N.J.L. 406, 11 A.2d 752 (Sup.Ct.1940); Yeskel v. United States, 31 F.Supp. 956 (D.C.D.N.J. 1940); General Mutual Ins. Co. v. Coyle, 207 Misc. 362, 136 N.Y.S.2d 43 (Sup.Ct.1954); Niagara Falls Power Co. v. White, 292 N.Y. 472, 55 N.E.2d 742 (Ct.App.1944); Annotation 163 A.L.R. 244, 246 (......
-
Goodwill Advertising Co. v. State Liquor Authority
...asserted its right to pass upon the final questions involved (22 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 742; General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coyle, 207 Misc. 362, 364, 136 N.Y.S.2d 43, 45; New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators v. State Liquor Authority, 285 N.Y. 272, 34 N.E.2d 316; Town of Ohio v. Pe......
-
Hunterfly Realty Corp. v. State
...the final questions involved.' (See also Town of Ohio v. People, 264 App.Div. 220, 35 N.Y.S.2d 107, Supra; General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Coyle, 207 Misc. 362, 136 N.Y.S.2d 43.) I should add here also that this same limiting factor governing declaratory judgments, a 'proprietary' interest,......