Homere v. State

• Decision Date: 10 July 1975
• Docket Number: 55103,Nos. 55058,s. 55058
• Citation: 48 A.D.2d 422,370 N.Y.S.2d 246
• Parties: Gladys HOMERE et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Anna STILLMAN et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 246

370 N.Y.S.2d 246

48 A.D.2d 422

Gladys HOMERE et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.

Anna STILLMAN et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.

Claim Nos. 55058, 55103.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 10, 1975.

Ira J. Raab, Lynbrook, for respondents.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Jeremiah Jochnowitz and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Before HERLIHY, P.J., and GREENBLOTT, SWEENEY, MAIN and LARKIN, JJ.

MAIN, Justice.

This is an appeal from judgments in favor of claimants, entered December 5, 1974, upon a decision of the Court of Claims solely on the issue of liability for injuries which claimants sustained as the result of attacks by a former Pilgrim State Hospital patient.

On the morning of March 20, 1972, the two female claimants herein were assaulted at the Aqueduct Station of the Independent Subway Line, Queens County, New York. The identity of their assailant is conceded to be Melvin Samuels, a man who had been released from the Pilgrim State Hospital earlier that same morning and whose past record included repeated incidents of assaultive behavior and numerous confinements in State psychiatric hospitals. Finding that Samuels had been negligently discharged from the hospital, the trial court held that the State was thereby rendered liable for claimants' injuries resulting from the attacks. It is this decision which is challenged on this appeal.

We find that the judgments of the trial court must be affirmed. Although it is well settled that the State is not responsible for an honest error of professional judgment made by qualified and competent doctors in its employ (Williams v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 611, 290 N.Y.S.2d 263; St. George v. State of New York, 283 App.Div. 245, 127 N.Y.S.2d 147, affd., 308 N.Y. 681, 124 N.E.2d 320), this rule does not constitute an inflexible grant of total immunity to the State in all situations. Indeed, in St. George v. State of New York (supra, p. 248, 127 N.Y.S.2d p. 151), this court qualified its finding of no liability by saying that it would be unreasonable and unfair to hold the State responsible 'unless there is something more present than is contained in this record'.

Here, there is clearly 'something more' which justifies the trial court's ruling in favor of claimants. In view of Samuels' past history, his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Chaudhary, termed his case 'somewhat unusual' and found it necessary to convene a commission of three doctors to approve his discharge when, ordinarily, one doctor would make this decision. The commission thereupon made an evaluation of the patient and decided that he could be discharged on February 7, 1972, and, as conceded by claimants' expert witness, Dr. Orenstein, had Samuels been released at that time and the subsequent attacks had occurred, no liability would have attached to the State because of the rule enunciated in St. George v. State of New York...