Saunsen v. State

• Decision Date: 22 June 1981
• Citation: 81 A.D.2d 252,440 N.Y.S.2d 281
• Parties: Gregory J. SAUNSEN, Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 281

440 N.Y.S.2d 281

81 A.D.2d 252

Gregory J. SAUNSEN, Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 22, 1981.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter J. Dooley and Jeremiah Jochnowitz, Asst. Attys. Gen., Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard T. Callan, Bay Shore, for respondent.

Before TITONE, J.P., and LAZER, MANGANO and COHALAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The State of New York appeals from so much of an order of the Court of Claims as denied its motion to dismiss the claim. For the reasons that follow, the motion should be granted except insofar as claimant seeks recovery for negligent acts which occurred on or after April 1, 1977.

On December 31, 1974 a warrant was issued by a Judge of the Suffolk County District Court for Gregory Saunsen's arrest for nonpayment of a $15 traffic fine. Saunsen had paid the fine on March 4, 1974. More than three years later, on April 2, 1978, Saunsen was arrested pursuant to the warrant. Saunsen alleges that as a result of his arrest he was taken from his vehicle, removed to the police station in handcuffs and detained for three hours until his subsequent release on $25 bail and receipt of an appearance ticket. The appearance ticket was canceled once it was determined that the fine had been paid.

Thereafter, Saunsen brought the instant claim against the State and various other officials claiming false arrest and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the claim and the Court of Claims granted the motion as to all the defendants except the State. The State appeals from the determination adverse to it.

Where the confinement or detention of an individual against his will is privileged, an action for false arrest will not lie (see Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310). One instance where the privilege does arise is when the confinement is based on an arrest warrant, valid on its face, issued by a court having jurisdiction (see id.). An arrest based on a facially valid warrant, which results in an unlawful detention, does not give rise to an action for false arrest even though the warrant was erroneously or improperly issued (see People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93; Warner v. State of New York, 297 N.Y. 395, 79 N.E.2d 459; Boose v. City of Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740; Nastasi v. State of New York, 275 App.Div. 524, 90 N.Y.S.2d 377, affd. 300 N.Y. 473, 88 N.E.2d 658).

At bar, the arrest warrant appears to have been valid on its face. The warrant was issued by a court with appropriate authority and jurisdiction and Saunsen failed to attack its facial validity in his claim or on this appeal. The facial validity of the arrest warrant precludes the claim for false arrest (see People v. Briggs, supra; Nastasi v. State of New York, supra).

Additionally, this appeal raises the issue of whether the State should be liable for the actions or omissions of the nonjudicial employees of the District Court in issuing and then failing to revoke...