Morell v. Balasubramanian, 70 N.Y.2d 297 (1987)
State employees can be sued in Supreme Court for tortious conduct committed within the scope of their employment, even if the state could also be held vicariously liable; the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to actions where the state is the real party in interest.
Summary
This case clarifies that state employees can be held personally liable for their torts committed during their employment, and such actions can be brought in Supreme Court, not exclusively in the Court of Claims. The plaintiff sued state-employed physicians for malpractice in Supreme Court after his wife died during a procedure at a state hospital. The Court of Appeals held that the suit was properly brought in Supreme Court because the action was for a breach of duty owed individually by the physicians to the patient, not solely against the state, even though the state might be secondarily liable.
Facts
Rebecca Morell underwent treatment for severe rheumatoid arthritis at Helen Hayes Hospital, a state institution, from June 1981 to February 1982. In February 1982, during a hip replacement performed by state-employed physicians (the defendants), she suffered cardiac arrest and died.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, as administrator of his wife’s estate, commenced two actions: one against the State in the Court of Claims and another against the defendant physicians in Supreme Court, New York County. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint, holding that the State was the real party in interest and the action should have been brought in the Court of Claims. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action against state employees for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of their negligence, or whether such an action must be brought in the Court of Claims because the State is the real party in interest.
Holding
No, because the state employees are the real parties in interest, not the State, when the suit arises from a breach of a duty owed individually by the state employee directly to the injured party.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Court of Claims has limited jurisdiction, generally hearing actions against the State or actions naming state officials where the action is, in reality, against the State. However, not every suit against a state officer is a suit against the state. A suit against a state officer is considered to be against the State when it arises from actions or determinations of the officer made in their official role and involves rights asserted solely against the State.
Here, the suit was against the physicians for breach of a duty of care they owed directly to the decedent. The Court emphasized the distinction between actions against state officers in their official capacity (which must be brought in the Court of Claims) and actions against them individually for torts arising from a breach of a personal duty owed to the injured party (which can be brought in Supreme Court). The court referenced previous cases such as Murtha v New York Homeopathic Med. Coll. & Flower Hosp., 228 NY 183, where actions arising out of a traffic accident involving a state ambulance service could be maintained against the hospital in Supreme Court, emphasizing this point.
The Court rejected the argument that the Court of Claims Act requires all actions based on the tortious actions of state employees to be considered claims against the State. Such an interpretation, the court noted, would create total immunity for state employees, which the legislature did not intend. Public Officers Law § 17, which provides for defense and indemnification of State employees, implicitly recognizes that State employees can be sued in state or federal courts. As the court stated, “The wrongdoer, even when an agent, must respond, whether the principal may be held or not.”