Holt v. City of Troy

• Citation: 355 N.Y.S.2d 94,78 Misc.2d 9
• Parties: Timothy HOLT et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF TROY, New York, et al., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 01 May 1974
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 94

355 N.Y.S.2d 94

78 Misc.2d 9

Timothy HOLT et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF TROY, New York, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Rensselaer County.

May 1, 1974.

William R. Jubic, Corp. Counsel, Troy (Donald J. Shanley, Troy, of counsel), for defendant, The City of Troy.

E. Stewart Jones, Troy (E. Stewart Jones, Jr., Troy, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

HAROLD J. HUGHES, Justice:

This is a motion by defendants to dismiss the third cause of action in the complaint on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and upon the further ground that it fails to state a cause of action.

On January 10, 1972, while the plaintiff Timothy Holt was at the Central Police Station in the City of Troy, he was allegedly shot in the leg by a police officer. The present action was commenced to recover damages for his personal injuries; the first cause of action is based on negligence, the second is based upon assault. The third cause of action is founded upon an alleged violation of section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. It is defendants' contention that this action must be brought in Federal court and that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the action.

The Federal statute in question (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 1983) provides a right of recovery against persons who, acting under the color of state law, cause a deprivation of one's constitutional rights. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides in part:

'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It is the court's opinion that under this provision, state courts are not free to deny enforcement of claims growing out of a valid Federal statute (see Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386, 67 S.Ct. 810, 91 L.Ed. 967; Lakewood Homes, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of City of Lima, 23 Ohio Misc. 211, 258 N.E.2d 470, 508 (Ohio, 1970), mod., 25 Ohio App.2d 125, 267 N.E.2d 595). Indeed, it has been held that redress for an individual's invasion of another's civil rights must be sought in state courts, not Federal courts, under the Federal Civil Rights Act, in the absence of diversity of parties' citizenship (Williams v. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 3 Cir., 220 F.2d 302, cert. den. sub nom., Dargan v. Yellow Cab Co., 346 U.S. 840, 74 S.Ct. 52, 98 L.Ed. 361). At the very least, the state courts and the Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over plaintiff's cause of action (see United States v. State Tax Commission, 481 F.2d 963, 974, f.n. 12 (1 Cir. 1973); Liles v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 414 F.2d 612 (4 Cir. 1969); Hancock v. Avery, D.C., 301 F.Supp. 786, 790; contra, Beauregard v. Wingard, D.C., 230 F.Supp. 167, 185). Even if the New York courts were not obliged to entertain the action, they certainly have the power to enforce rights created by Federal statutes except where jurisdiction in the Federal courts is expressly or impliedly reserved (see Matter of Schmoll, Inc. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 286 N.Y. 503, 508, 37 N.E.2d 225, 226; New York Lumber Trade Association v. Lacy, 245 App.Div. 262, 267, 281 N.Y.S. 647, 653, affd., 269 N.Y. 595, 199 N.E. 688, cert. den., 298 U.S. 684, 56 S.Ct. 954...