Haddock v. City of New York, 75 N.Y.2d 478 (1990)

A municipality can be held liable for negligent retention of an employee with a criminal record when it fails to follow its own established procedures for evaluating the risks associated with that employee’s placement, and that negligence foreseeably leads to harm.

Summary

The City of New York was sued after a Parks Department employee, James Johnson, raped a nine-year-old girl in a playground. Johnson, hired through the Work Relief Employment Program (WREP), had a significant criminal history that was not properly investigated due to the City’s failure to follow its own personnel procedures. The Court of Appeals held the City liable for negligent retention, emphasizing that the City did not exercise any discretion or judgment regarding Johnson’s placement after learning of his criminal record, and therefore could not claim immunity. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, finding the City’s negligence a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Facts

Plaintiff, a nine-year-old girl, was regularly playing in a Bronx playground. James Johnson, a Parks Department utility worker hired through the WREP, was assigned to the playground. On April 8, 1975, Johnson gave the plaintiff a jump rope and told her to return it. When she returned the rope to the maintenance shed, Johnson raped and assaulted her for over two hours. Johnson had been hired seven months prior despite a lengthy criminal record that included convictions for attempted rape, robbery, and grand larceny. He falsely stated on his application that he had no arrest record.

Procedural History

The initial jury verdict of $2.5 million was overturned by the Appellate Division due to an error in jury instructions regarding foreseeability. A second trial resulted in a $3.5 million verdict for the plaintiff, but the trial court dismissed the complaint, citing governmental immunity and unforeseeability. The Appellate Division reversed, reinstating a reduced verdict of $2.5 million. The City appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the City of New York can be held liable for negligent retention of James Johnson, given his criminal history and the City’s failure to follow its own personnel procedures.

Holding

Yes, because the City failed to exercise any discretion or judgment regarding Johnson’s placement after learning of his criminal record and thus cannot claim governmental immunity. The City’s failure to follow its own procedures directly led to a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals focused on the City’s failure to adhere to its own internal procedures for evaluating employees with criminal records. The court distinguished this case from those involving discretionary governmental actions, stating, “The immunity afforded a municipality presupposes an exercise of discretion in compliance with its own procedures. Indeed, the very basis for the value judgment supporting immunity and denying individual recovery for injury becomes irrelevant where the municipality violates its own internal rules and policies and exercises no judgment or discretion.” Because the City did not properly assess Johnson’s suitability for his position after receiving his rap sheet, it could not claim immunity. The court emphasized that simply hiring an ex-convict does not automatically create liability; however, failing to make an informed decision based on established procedures does. The court rejected the City’s argument that the public policy of rehabilitating ex-convicts should shield it from liability, stating, “But even that worthy objective cannot excuse a municipal employer from compliance with its own procedures requiring informed discretion in the placement of individuals with criminal records.” The court clarified that its holding does not impose a duty not to hire ex-convicts, but rather emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making in such employment situations. The court noted, “As a general proposition, it is not for courts to second-guess the wisdom of discretionary governmental choices… Particularly with respect to the employment of ex-convicts…the opportunity for gainful employment may spell the difference between recidivism and rehabilitation.”