89 N.Y.2d 172 (1996)

The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over damage claims against the State based on violations of the New York Constitution’s Equal Protection and Search and Seizure Clauses, and a cause of action to recover damages may be asserted against the State for such violations.

Summary

This case addresses whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over constitutional tort claims against the State of New York and whether a cause of action exists for damages based on violations of the State Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the Court of Claims does have jurisdiction over such claims due to the broad waiver of sovereign immunity, but claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fail. The Court further recognized a cause of action for damages directly under the State Constitution’s Equal Protection and Search and Seizure Clauses.

Facts

Following a reported assault by a black male near the State University of New York at Oneonta campus, police obtained a list of African-American male students from the university’s computer system. Police interrogated these students and, when that failed, conducted a five-day “street sweep,” stopping and interrogating every nonwhite male in the area. No one was arrested.

Procedural History

Claimants, nonwhite males who were stopped and examined, filed a class action suit in the Court of Claims, alleging constitutional violations. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim, stating it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the order, finding jurisdiction but dismissing federal claims while reinstating state constitutional claims.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional tort claims against the State, absent express statutory authorization or a traditional common-law tort theory.
2. Whether the claimants state a cause of action against the defendant based upon rights secured by the State and Federal Constitutions and various State statutes.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Court of Claims Act waives the State’s immunity from liability for torts, and this waiver is not limited to traditional common-law torts, encompassing claims based on violations of the State Constitution.
2. No, as to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, because the State is not considered a “person” under that statute. Yes, as to claims seeking damages based upon provisions of the New York Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection and Search and Seizure Clauses, because these provisions are self-executing and support an implied cause of action for damages.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Court of Claims Act confers broad jurisdiction to hear claims against the State for torts of its officers or employees, and the waiver of immunity should be construed broadly. The term “tort” was not intended to be limited to common-law torts existing in 1939. It also stated, “The State hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes liability and consents to have the same determined in accordance with the same rules of law as applied to actions in the supreme court against individuals or corporations” (Court of Claims Act § 8). Regarding the causes of action, the court held that a civil damage remedy could be implied from the State constitution as a “self-executing” provision. The court cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A to imply a civil remedy from constitution provisions. The court also referenced the Bivens action where “constitutional guarantees are worthy of protection on their own terms without being linked to some common-law or statutory tort, and that the courts have the obligation to enforce these rights by ensuring that each individual receives an adequate remedy for violation of a constitutional duty.” The court further held that holding the state responsible had the highest deterrent value by providing proper training and supervision. Judge Bellacosa dissented in part, arguing that the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction is limited and should not be expanded by judicial interpretation, and the majority was “promulgating new subject-matter jurisdiction for a court of limited powers and recognizes new remedies and causes of action against the State”.