Waterman v. State
| Decision Date | 10 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 32473,32473 |
| Citation | 2 N.Y.2d 803,159 N.Y.S.2d 702 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 140 N.E.2d 551 Paul WATERMAN, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim) Court of Appeals of New York |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 1 A.D.2d 235, 149 N.Y.S.2d 381.
Claimant brought a proceeding against the State of New Yokr for damages for detention in the state reformatory for a period allegedly in excess of maximum sentence.
The Court of Claims, Bernard Ryan, J., 207 Misc. 773, 138 N.Y.S.2d 854, entered judgment in favor of the claimant for $3,500 and interest, amounting in all to $3,508.56, and the claimant and the State of New York appealed.
The Appellate Division, 1 A.D.2d 235, 149 N.Y.S.2d 381, affirmed the judgment and held that claimant's maximum term by explicit legislative direction was five years, and that the State of New York was liable for damages to claimant for detention in excess of such period.
The Appellate Division, 2 A.D.2d 646, 151 N.Y.S.2d 623, denied motion for reargument, and granted motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The State of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that Section 1931 of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, had no application to the claimant, and that order committing claimant to Reception Center was valid on its face and that the Department of Correction was entirely justified in acting on it, and that determination of the illegality of the claimant's sentence did not give rise to a claim of damages, and that, insofar as the claimed excessive time served was due to incarceration following parole violation, the State was not liable therefor, and that without conceding the applicability of Section 1931 to the case, if it does apply, it is not retroactive for purposes of the litigation.
Jacob K. Javits, Atty. Gen. (James O. Moore, Jr., Solicitor Gen., Albany, and Joseph H. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Wilfred E. Hoffmann, Syracuse (Robert W. Hartnett, Syracuse, of counsel), for claimant.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whirl v. Kern
...in jail beyond the period of his lawful sentence. Birdsall v. Lewis, 1936, 246 App.Div. 132, 285 N.Y.S. 146; Waterman v. State, 1957, 2 N.Y.2d 803, 159 N.Y.S.2d 702, 140 N.E.2d 551; Cohen v. State, 1965, 47 Misc.2d 470, 262 N.Y.S.2d 980, reversed on other grounds, 25 A.D.2d 339, 269 N.Y.S.2......
-
Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n
... ... The trial court initially denied the motion to dismiss but, upon motion for reconsideration, accepted the state's position and granted the motion to dismiss as to both defendants, reasoning ... that under the facts alleged in the Complaint sovereign immunity ... The [allegedly] illegal detention was the result of nothing which the commitment directed." Waterman v. State, 1 A.D.2d 235, 149 N.Y.S.2d 381, 382 (1956), aff'd, 2 N.Y.2d 803, 159 N.Y.S.2d 702, 140 N.E.2d 551 (1957). Nor is this a case of ... ...
-
Emanuele v. State
...binding on this Court. Waterman v. State, 207 Misc. 773, 138 N.Y.S.2d 854, aff'd 1 A.D.2d 235, 149 N.Y.S.2d 381, aff'd 2 N.Y.2d 803, 159 N.Y.S.2d 702, 140 N.E.2d 551. To the same effect see Williams v. State, 8 Misc.2d 390, 168 N.Y.S.2d 163, aff'd 5 A.D.2d 936, 172 N.Y.S.2d 206. There can b......
-
Todzia v. State
...See also, Waterman v. State of New York, 207 Misc. 773, 138 N.Y.S.2d 854, affd. 1 A.D.2d 235, 149 N.Y.S.2d 381, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 803, 159 N.Y.S.2d 702, 140 N.E.2d 551. Claimant has demanded $19,800.00 for the alleged loss of earnings and shame, humiliation and loss of freedom. As stated in Wa......