Zimmerman v. State
| Decision Date | 05 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 65900,65900 |
| Parties | Isidore ZIMMERMAN, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant. Claim |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
Claimant moves for partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212.
This claim arises out of Senate Bill S-6883 that was signed into law by the Governor on July 20, 1981.
On June 21, 1937, claimant Isidore Zimmerman was indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for the crime of first degree murder, allegedly arising out of a robbery of an after-hours club that resulted in the death of a New York City police officer.
Claimant was tried with a co-defendant before a jury from March 18 to April 14, 1938, found guilty of murder and sentenced to death on April 22, 1938.
Hours before this claimant's life was to be terminated by the State of New York by execution in the electric chair, Governor Lehman commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. In 1962 the Court of Appeals sustained a writ of error coram nobis, reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. That Court found that a key prosecution witness had testified falsely. The witness had previously made statements to the prosecutor that were materially inconsistent with his later testimony at the trial. The prosecutor knew of such statements, failed to correct the falsehood and thus, denied the Court and defendant an opportunity to examine the statements.
The Court of Appeals found the prosecutor's conduct so prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial that it was tantamount to a suppression of evidence. As a result the claimant was deprived due process in violation of the Constitution of the United States and of the State of New York. The indictment was subsequently dismissed and the claimant now stands before this Court unindicted and not convicted of any crimes.
To give this claimant a day in Court and the opportunity to right the injustice that was inflicted upon him, the New York State Legislature by Bill S-6883, Chapter 608 of the Laws of New York of 1981 waived the State's sovereign immunity and conferred jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine Mr. Zimmerman's claim.
The Bill states facts that were found by the Court of Appeals in reversing the conviction. It provides that this Court may award damages if it finds the facts to be substantially as therein set forth.
"AN ACT to confer jurisdiction upon the court of claims to hear, audit and determine the claim of Isidore Zimmerman against the state for damages sustained by him as a result of and in connection with his erroneous conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree, and his imprisonment therefor, as a claim founded in right and justice or in law and equity against the state and morally and equitably payable and to render judgment therefor.
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the court of claims to hear, audit and determine the claim of Isidore Zimmerman against the state for damages sustained by him as the result of and in connection with his erroneous indictment and conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree, as a claim founded in right and justice or in law and equity, in that his conviction was based upon the deliberate suppression of testimony by the prosecutor, demonstrative of the innocence of Isidore Zimmerman and the knowing use of perjured testimony by the prosecutor thereby depriving Isidore Zimmerman of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Isidore Zimmerman was indicted by a New York county grand jury by indictment number 212947- 1/2 filed on June twenty-first, nineteen hundred thirty-seven. He was tried before Judge Nott and a jury in a trial that lasted from March eighteenth, nineteen hundred thirty-eight to April fourteenth, nineteen hundred thirty-eight and was sentenced to death on April twenty-second, nineteen hundred thirty-eight. He was released in nineteen hundred sixty-two after serving twenty-four years in prison.
§ 2. On January first, nineteen hundred sixty-two, Charles S. Desmond, then chief judge of the court of appeals, writing the opinion of the court reversing the order of the court of general sessions denying Zimmerman's motion for a writ of error, stated;
§ 3. If the court finds the facts to be substantially as hereinbefore set forth and finds that the claimant sustained damages as a result thereof, damages, including loss of earnings and compensation for the indignities and the shame and humiliation and loss of liberty and civil rights and the degradation and loss of reputation and the mental anguish suffered by claimant as a result of and in connection with his erroneous conviction and imprisonment shall constitute a valid and legal claim against the state, and the state shall be liable therefor, and the court may award to and render judgment for the claimant and against the state in such sum as the court shall find to be just and equitable.
§ 4. The state hereby waives its immunity from liability and consents to have its liability upon such claim determined, notwithstanding any failure of the claimant to file a claim or notice of intention to file such claim or to do any other act in relation to the presentation of such claim, within the time or in the manner or form prescribed by statute, provided such claim is filed with the court of claims within six months after this act takes effect.
§ 5. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as passing upon the merits of the claim herein and no award shall be made or judgment rendered against the state unless said claim is established by such legal evidence as is required in an action in a court of law or equity.
§ 6. This act shall take effect immediately."
The claim was duly filed and claimant now moves for partial summary judgment on three grounds. First, there is no material question of fact to be resolved. Secondly, that the defendant (State of New York) in its answer has admitted all of claimant's allegations. Thirdly, that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The State in its opposing papers does not deny that there is any material issue of fact to be resolved and "that the facts are substantially as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of chapter 608, and therefore must concede its liability under the provisions of chapter 608."
The Attorney General contends that in order for claimant to prevail ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santangelo v. State
...was not in response to any direct challenge to the statute and was, therefore, made sua sponte (see, e.g., Zimmerman v. State of New York, 116 Misc.2d 521, 455 N.Y.S.2d 974). It is worthwhile to note that the "Attorney-General's constitutional obligation is to argue in favor of the constitu......
-
Reed v. State
...facts from the distant past." (See, McKinney's 1984 Session Laws of New York, Vol II, p 3669). See also, Zimmerman v. State of New York, 116 Misc.2d 521, 455 N.Y.S.2d 974; Butters v. State of New York, 27 Misc.2d 105, 213 N.Y.S.2d 781; Hoffner v. State of New York, 207 Misc. 1070, 142 N.Y.S......
-
Chapman v. State of New York
...272 AD2d 971, appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 886, cert denied 531 US 1079; Shields v Katz, 143 AD2d 743; Zimmerman v State of New York, 116 Misc 2d 521). In a claim involving the Legislature's attempts to create and revive causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e,[1] the propos......
-
Medina v. State, # 2013-049-031
...193 Misc 2d 216, 219 [Ct Cl 2002] [Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to rule on constitutionality of statutes]; Zimmerman v State of New York, 116 Misc 2d 521, 526 [Ct Cl 1982] [same]). In light of the foregoing, claimant's motion No. M-83153 for summary judgment is denied, defendant's cro......