WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY STATE EMPLOYEE OVER A 3-MONTH PERIOD
After the Court of Claims granted New York State’s request to dismiss a claim because it was bereft of the required factual specificity, an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, ensued.
On its review, the AD2 noted that state law directs that claims proffer the following elements, “(1) 'the nature of [the claim]'; (2) 'the time when' it arose; (3) the 'place where' it arose; (4) 'the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained'; and (5) 'the total sum claimed.'" But, interestingly, the appellate court added that while compliance is critical, “absolute exactness is not required.” The claim need only be “sufficiently detailed,” so as to allow the State to investigate and assess liability.
Because the notice in this case provided adequate detail with respect to the State’s “alleged negligent hiring, training, and supervision of an employee who had subjected the claimant to multiple sexual assaults at Sagamore [Children’s Psychiatric Center] between June 5, 2013, and September 16, 2013—a period of approximately three months—while the claimant was a patient at Sagamore,” and since that recitation was “sufficiently specific to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and ascertain its liability,” the AD2 “modified” the underlying outcome and reinstated the litigation.
Think they took notice of that?
# # #
DECISION