Nieves v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 24 June 1977 |
| Citation | 397 N.Y.S.2d 531,91 Misc.2d 214 |
| Parties | Benjamin NIEVES and Samuel Nieves, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Gaspare Volpe and Allan Nelson, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Edelman & Jennings, Mark F. Fisherman, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiffs.
Alphonse E. D'Ambrose, David Henry Sculnick, New York City, of counsel, for defendants.
Defendants, New York City Transit Authority, Gaspare Volpe and Allan Nelson, move for summary judgment dismissing the action brought against them by the plaintiffs, Benjamin Nieves and Samuel Nieves, on the ground of res judicata.
This action arose from an incident which occurred on December 30, 1973, when the plaintiffs allegedly were assaulted, falsely imprisoned and falsely arrested by the defendants Volpe and Nelson on the IND "E" train and in the 23rd Street IND station. The plaintiffs brought an action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, claiming deprivation of constitutional rights pursuant to the Federal Civil Rights Act (Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code). Included in the complaint were causes of action for damages arising out of the alleged assault. The Federal District Court Judge limited the trial to the issue of whether there was a violation of the Civil Rights Act, relegating all questions of damages arising out of the alleged assault for determination in the State Court. Accordingly the plaintiffs' tort claims were dismissed without prejudice.
After trial, the jury in the United States District Court found that there had been no violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Civil Rights Act, and held for the defendants. The judge accordingly approved the entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.
The issue presented on this motion for summary judgment is whether the Federal District Court judgment on the claim brought under the applicable section of the Civil Rights Act is res judicata barring plaintiffs' common law causes of action in this proceeding.
In the case of Neulist v. County of Nassau, 50 A.D.2d 803, 375 N.Y.S.2d 402, decided in 1975, the Appellate Division allowed a common law action for malicious prosecution to be brought in the State Court contemporaneously with a Federal civil rights case in the Federal Court based on the same facts, stating: "One of the purposes underlying the Federal Civil Rights Act (Title 42, section 1981 et seq.) was 'to provide a remedy in the Federal Courts supplementary to any remedy any state might have' ".
The federal Civil Rights Act was enacted to protect citizens from the deprivation of their constitutional rights by state officials acting under color of state law. The rights protected by the Civil Rights Act are public ones, created or adopted by the Federal Constitution or by Congress (Howell v. Cataldi, 3 Cir., 464 F.2d 272, 279). Torts, by comparison, violate private rights for which redress may be sought in the state courts. The right to relief under the Civil Rights Act is not predicated upon a breach of duty imposed by the law of torts (Howell, supra, 278, 279).
The supplementary and broad public right to relief under the Civil Rights Act must be considered distinct from any existing rights arising out of the common law.
"The same set of facts may give rise to violations of both federal statute and the state common law, but the rights are not necessarily coterminous and the essential criteria are not necessarily the same". (emphasis added) Martin v. Duffie, 10 Cir., 463 F.2d 464, 467.
Furthermore, the elements of proof required in a common law action for assault, false imprisonment and false arrest differ greatly from the proof required in a case arising out of the Civil Rights Act. For example, proof of intent to commit a violation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duverney v. State
...473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 88 S.Ct. 391, 19 L.Ed.2d 444.11 In the recent case of Nieves v. New York City Transit Authority, 91 Misc.2d 214, 397 N.Y.S.2d 531, it was held (at p. 216, 397 N.Y.S.2d at p. 532):"The supplementary and broad public right to relief under t......
-
Pitt v. City of New York
...den. 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 Duverney v. State, 96 Misc.2d 898, 410 N.Y.S.2d 237; Nieves v. New York City Transit Authority, 91 Misc.2d 214, 397 N.Y.S.2d 531) and that such person in so doing acted under color of state law. (Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 100 S.Ct. 1920,......
-
Williams v. Codd
...State courts have routinely taken jurisdiction over cases brought under § 1983. See, e. g., Nieves v. New York City Transit Authority, 91 Misc.2d 214, 397 N.Y.S.2d 531, 532 (Sup.Ct.New York Co.1977); Brody v. Leamy, 90 Misc.2d 1, 393 N.Y.S.2d 243, 257 (Sup.Ct.Dutchess Co.1977). Thus, the is......
-
McKinney v. City of New York
...Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 72 A.D.2d 385, 424 N.Y.S.2d 918). Finally, we note that Special Term's reliance on Nieves v. New York City Tr. Auth., 91 Misc.2d 214, 397 N.Y.S.2d 531 is misplaced. There, the Federal court heard the section 1983 action and dismissed pendent State law tort claims, sp......