Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. City of Schenectadygreen2 sentences2009A constitutional tort claim is barred when a claimant has an alternative legal remedy to protect his or her constitutional rights (see Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 83-84 [2001]; Bullard v State of New York, 307 AD2d 676, 678-679 [2003]). 2006Moreover, in Martinez , the Court clarified that such a right is a “narrow” one and indicated that recognition of a constitutional tort claim is not necessary where the claimant has an alternate “avenue of redress” (Martinez v City of Schenectady, supra at 83). | 3 | 4 |
Shelton v. New York State Liquor Authoritygreen2 sentences2024Auth. , 61 AD3d 1145, 1151 [3d Dept 2009][citations omitted]; see also Brown v State of New York , 89 NY2d 172, 185 [1996] [citations omitted] [the State is not a "person" subject to a lawsuit pursuant to 42 USC 1983, which is the statute authorizing private parties to enforce their federal constitutional rights via lawsuits]). 2024Auth. , 61 AD3d 1145, 1151 [3d Dept 2009][citations omitted]; see also Brown v State of New York , 89 NY2d 172, 185 [1996] [citations omitted] [the State is not a "person" subject to a lawsuit pursuant to 42 USC 1983, which is the statute authorizing private parties to enforce their federal constitutional rights via lawsuits]). | 3 | 3 |
Brown v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024Auth. , 61 AD3d 1145, 1151 [3d Dept 2009][citations omitted]; see also Brown v State of New York , 89 NY2d 172, 185 [1996] [citations omitted] [the State is not a "person" subject to a lawsuit pursuant to 42 USC 1983, which is the statute authorizing private parties to enforce their federal constitutional rights via lawsuits]). 2009Since the proposed claim appears to assert causes of action for the intentional tort of false imprisonment (CPLR 215 [3] [a one-year statute of limitations]), and a constitutional tort for violation of claimant’s rights (CPLR 214 [5] [a three-year statute of limitations]; see Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 [1996]), the motion is properly before the court. | 3 | 3 |
Bullard v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Auth. , 61 AD3d 1145, 1150 [2009]; see Martinez v City of Schenectady , 97 NY2d 78, 83-84 [2001]; Bullard v State of New York , 307 AD2d 676, 678 [2003]). 2009A constitutional tort claim is barred when a claimant has an alternative legal remedy to protect his or her constitutional rights (see Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 83-84 [2001]; Bullard v State of New York, 307 AD2d 676, 678-679 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
Plate v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Next, in determining whether to grant a motion to file a late claim, Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) sets forth six factors that should be considered, although other factors deemed relevant also may be taken into account (Plate v State of New York, 92 Misc 2d 1033, 1036 [Ct Cl 1978]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rodriguez v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2015The allegations in the instant claim, that sewage covered 85% of the claimant’s cell for a period of nearly 12 hours, if true, may give rise to a constitutional tort claim for violation of the prohibition against cruel and inhuman treatment (cf. Rodriguez v City of New York, 87 AD3d 867 [1st Dept 2011] [allegations of a slippery floor condition were not sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and inhuman punishment]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Scott v. Smith
green
1 sentence2015To the extent claimant alleges that prison staff ignored a supervisor’s direct order to provide the claimant with a means to clean the unsanitary conditions in his cell, he sufficiently alleged the requisite state of mind necessary to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (cf. Scott v Smith, 104 AD3d 1029 [3d Dept 2013]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.