Gonzalez v. Tyson, 41 N.Y.2d 966 (1977)

A court clerk is not personally liable for damages resulting from an eviction warrant that contains an address discrepancy if the correct tenant was, in fact, evicted and properly served.

Summary

Gonzalez sued court clerks Tyson, English, and Steers, claiming wrongful eviction, conversion, and deprivation of constitutional rights because Steers issued an eviction warrant with an incorrect address. The New York Court of Appeals held that the clerks were not personally liable. The court reasoned that the landlord intended to evict Gonzalez, the correct tenant, and Gonzalez was properly served. Even though the warrant had a discrepancy, the eviction was not wrongful because the right tenant was evicted. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, avoiding the broader issue of clerk liability in wrongful eviction cases.

Facts

Plaintiff Gonzalez brought an action against Howard Tyson, Chief Clerk of the Civil Court; John English, Chief Clerk of the Housing Part of the Civil Court; and Winifred Steers, a clerk in the Housing Part. The lawsuit alleged wrongful eviction, conversion, and deprivation of constitutional rights. The basis for the claim was that clerk Steers issued a warrant of eviction referencing an address different from the one on the notice of petition and petition. However, the landlord intended to evict Gonzalez, and Gonzalez had been properly served.

Procedural History

The lower court dismissed Gonzalez’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. Gonzalez appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether court clerks can be held personally liable for damages for wrongful eviction when a warrant of eviction refers to an address that differs from the address on the notice of petition and petition, even if the correct tenant was evicted and properly served.

Holding

1. No, because the plaintiff, the intended tenant, was evicted after being properly served. The actions of the clerk did not cause a wrongful eviction under these circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that to succeed in his claim, Gonzalez had to show he wasn’t the intended target of the eviction and that the eviction occurred because of the clerk’s error in issuing a warrant for the wrong address. The court found that the facts indicated Gonzalez was the intended tenant and was properly served. The court stated, “Not only do the facts in the record fail to suggest that the wrong tenant was evicted, but the facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that the right tenant was evicted. Furthermore, with respect to plaintiff’s due process argument, plaintiff has not demonstrated or even alleged that he was not served with process at the correct address.” The court clarified that even if Steers had issued a warrant with the correct address from the start, the landlord would still have evicted Gonzalez. Therefore, the error in the warrant’s address did not cause a wrongful eviction in this particular case. The court explicitly avoided ruling on the broader issue of whether a clerk could ever be held liable for damages in a wrongful eviction case. The decision was based solely on the specific facts presented, where the right tenant was evicted after proper service, despite the clerical error.