Padula v. State, 54694

• Decision Date: 08 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 54694,No. 56914,54694,56914
• Citation: 399 N.Y.S.2d 916,59 A.D.2d 480
• Parties: Clara PADULA, as Administratrix of the Estate of Frank Padula, Deceased, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim) Paul MODAFFERI, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 916

399 N.Y.S.2d 916

59 A.D.2d 480

Clara PADULA, as Administratrix of the Estate of Frank

Padula, Deceased, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim No. 54694.)

Paul MODAFFERI, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim No. 56914.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Dec. 8, 1977.

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

Schiano & Poyzer, Rochester (Charles A. Schiano, Rochester, of counsel), for Clara Padula, respondent.

Francis E. Dorn, Brooklyn (Joseph Fallek, Brooklyn, of counsel), for Paul Modafferi, respondent.

Before SWEENEY, J. P., and KANE, MAHONEY, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.

SWEENEY, Justice Presiding.

The claimants seek damages for wrongful death (Padula) and personal injuries (Modafferi) alleging negligence on the part of the State. At the time of the alleged negligence Frank Padula and Paul Modafferi were residents of the Iroquois Rehabilitation Center. They were both certified heroin addicts, as were the other residents of the Center. Under the jurisdiction of the State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission, the Center was maintained as part of the State's program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. The Center was an open minimum security facility oriented to the community and without confining walls or fences. Pursuant to a commitment to the Federal government all the residents were to work a certain number of months out in the field.

One of several rehabilitative training programs at the Center included the use of a print shop located on the premises. On August 27, 1971 one of the residents was granted permission to enter the shop after hours to complete a printing job. During that evening Padula, Modafferi and other residents went to the shop and consumed some "Ditto" fluid mixed with water and Tang. "Ditto" fluid is a printing fluid containing methyl alcohol. The gallon container was in plain view on a work bench and clearly marked "Poison" and "May be fatal or cause blindness if swallowed". It was also marked with the well-understood symbol of a skull and crossbones. As a result of the consumption Padula died and Modafferi went blind.

After a bifurcated trial on the question of liability the court found the State negligent and Padula and Modafferi free from contributory negligence. This appeal ensued.

We agree with the Court of Claims' finding of negligence on the part of the State. Furthermore, we reject the State's contention that the incident occurred as a result of a governmental decision for which immunity has not been waived by the State. An examination of the record demonstrates that the negligence on behalf of the State was not predicated on the decision of the State to conduct the rehabilitation program, but rather on the manner in which the program and course of treatment were executed. A resolution of the controversy is distilled to the remaining issue of contributory negligence.

Initially, we note that on such issue there is a sharp conflict in the medical testimony as to the ability of claimants to resist the use of any available, even harmful, substance which would provide a "mood change". One psychiatrist testified on behalf of claimants that hard core addicts were considered "emotional infants" and would use any chemical to produce a "mood change" and that they were powerless to resist the temptation. Another psychiatrist testified that claimant Modafferi had so great a "gratification need and motivation" to get high that he would deny the possibility that it might be harmful. There was contrary proof by a State psychiatrist who testified that in 1971 there was no single accepted standard treatment for drug addicts, but that the majority opinion among experts was that addicts were sophisticated and used discretion as to what they took and were not "emotional infants". He added that while an addict would take risks to get heroin that he might not take to get something else, he would nevertheless be careful not to harm himself. He further concluded that the addicts had "no emotional incapability to behave appropriately with respect to a chemical" labeled as poisonous.

The record also establishes that neither claimant suffered from a mental disability; that cl...