Gross v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 49984,49984 |
| Citation | 33 A.D.2d 868,306 N.Y.S.2d 28 |
| Parties | Irving GROSS et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. Robert Kroll, Merrick, for respondents.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Julius L. Sackman, Albany, for appellant.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and REYNOLDS, STALEY, GREENBLOTT and SWEENEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered February 11, 1969, which denied the State's motion for an order dismissing the claim on the grounds that the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that the claim failed to state a cause of action.
On or about May 27, 1968 claimants presented to the Secretary of State a certificate of incorporation of Baron Decorators, Ltd., which certificate was accepted and filed. Claimants allege that thereafter they were advised that the said name of Baron Decorators, Ltd. was not available because of a conflict with a corporation incorporated in 1940 known as Baron Decorating Service, Inc. (General Corporation Law, § 9.)
Thereafter claimants filed an application for a change of name of their corporation to Carlin Decorators, Ltd., and allege that they have been damaged by reason of the negligence of the employee of the Secretary of State's office who failed to advise them that the name applied for was not available, and that claimants were further damaged by reason of the necessity to change their corporate name.
The trial court held that the claim does state a cause of action, and that the examination of the files in the Secretary of State's office 'to ascertain the availability of a corporate name is purely a clerical or ministerial function for which an individual or private corporation could be liable if either of the latter performed the same in a negligent manner.'
The State contends that the act of the Secretary of State, in approving or disapproving corporate names, is a purely governmental function and that, therefore, the State has not waived its immunity from suit. (Court of Claims Act, § 8.) Claimants contend that the negligent act involved here was merely a clerical or ministerial function which does not absolve the State from liability.
It has uniformly been held that the State would not be responsible for the tortious acts of its employees performed clearly as a governmental function requiring the exercise of discretion or judgment of a quasi-judicial nature. (Weiss v. Fote, 7 N.Y.2d 579, 200 N.Y.S.2d 409, 167 N.E.2d 63; Bernkrant v. State of New York, 26 A.D.2d 964, 274 N.Y.S.2d 749; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866; Granger v. State of New York, 14 A.D.2d 645, 218 N.Y.S.2d 742.) However, the waiver of immunity provided by section 8 of the Court of Claims Act applies to the sovereign the same test of liability as would be applied to an individual or private corporation if it were obligated to discharge a governmental function. (Weiss v. Fote, Supra; Becker v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.2d 226, 159 N.Y.S.2d 174, 140 N.E.2d 262; Simon v. City of New York, 53 Misc.2d 622, 279 N.Y.S.2d 223.)
As the court stated in Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 375, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, 333:
'Under the rule a distinction is drawn between a ministerial or non-discretionary act from which liability ensues if done wrongfully, and a jjdicial or discretionary act for which the public officer is immune from liability even if the act is wrongful (2 Harper and James, Law of Torts, § 29.10, pp. 1638--1646; Prosser, Torts (2d ed.), § 109, pp. 780--783)'.
The decisive question here is whether or not the act of the employee in the Secretary of State's office in checking the files of corporate names to ascertain whether a conflict existed between the name applied for by respondents and existing corporate names was a discretionary act or a ministerial act.
The rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State (Executive Law, § 91) provide that when the Secretary of State informs a proposed corporation that a name is available, it is not to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobson v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.
...15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866; Weiss v. Fote, 7 N.Y.2d 579, 200 N.Y.S.2d 409, 167 N.E.2d 63; Gross v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 868, 306 N.Y.S.2d 28; Band v. Town of Colonie, 36 A.D.2d 785, 319 N.Y.S.2d 118; Lockwood v. Village of Buchanan, 18 Misc.2d 862, 182 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Bell v. State
...State of New York, 90 A.D.2d 861, 456 N.Y.S.2d 491, Abruzzo v. State of New York, 84 A.D.2d 876, 444 N.Y.S.2d 739, Gross v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 868, 306 N.Y.S.2d 28, and Castro v. Board of Bar Examiners of the State of New York (Ct.Cl., Oct. 16, 1986, Benza, Barrett, Abruzzo, and G......
-
Barnes v. Nassau County
...63]; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd 15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866; Gross v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 868, 306 N.Y.S.2d 28)." Indeed, the duty to care for the welfare of the children is imposed on the county by the State (Social Services Law §§......
-
Spatt v. State of New York
...and thus the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over the claim. See Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9 (McKinney 1963); Gross v. State, 33 A.D.2d 868, 306 N.Y.S.2d 28 (Sup.Ct. 1969). He went on to state, however, that assuming the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over the claim it still had to be......