Can you Sue an Operator of a State Owned Vehicle in Supreme Court or is Jurisdiction over the Action Limited to the Court of Claims?

Most practitioners in New York believe that when someone is involved in a car accident with a State-owned vehicle, the lawsuit must be brought in the Court of Claims. This is often troublesome because in the Court of Claims the plaintiff is not entitled to a jury of his peers; instead, the case is decided by a Judge only. These judges are notorious for being pro-State. Our research reveals, however, that a party may actually bring such a claim in Supreme Court, which does allow jury trials.

The following is an excerpt of a legal brief that we recently provided to the Court on a similar issue:

Because the Court of Claims' jurisdiction is limited to affirmative damages claims against the State as a party in interest, an assessment must first be made whether the State is actually the real party in interest. Thus, where, for example an "arm" of the State (e.g., an agency or subdivision that performs a State function) or an employee for whose acts the State has primary liability is named as a party in an action, then the Courts have held that the State is the real party in interest. See Bell v. New York Higher Educ. Assistance Corp., 138 Misc. 2d 932, 526 N.Y.S.2d 316 (Sup 1987), order aff'd, 144 A.D.2d 1047, 533 N.Y.S.2d 642 (1st Dep't 1988) (holding that because the New York Higher Education Assistance Corp. is a State-created corporation pursuing State administrative functions, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit).

The State will also be deemed a party in interest in an action against a State official or employee arising from the official conduct or acts of the officer or employee. See Martin v. Lanigan, 150 A.D.2d 899, 541 N.Y.S.2d 142 (3d Dep't 1989); Automated Ticket Systems, Ltd. v. Quinn, 90 A.D.2d 738, 739, 455 N.Y.S.2d 799 (1st Dep't 1982), order aff'd, 58 N.Y.2d 949, 460 N.Y.S.2d 533 (1983) ("The claim for damages against State officers and departments in their official capacity is one of which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction; the claim can be prosecuted only in the Court of Claims."); Woodward v. State, 23 A.D.3d 852, 805 N.Y.S.2d 670 (3d Dep't 2005), leave to appeal dismissed, 6 N.Y.3d 807, 812 N.Y.S.2d 445 (2006); Valle v. Pearlman, Apat & Futterman, LLP, 16 Misc. 3d 133(A), 847 N.Y.S.2d 899 (App. Term 2007) (complaint filed in Civil Court of the City of New York asserting claims against State court judge was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the court stated that, "[i] is well settled that actions against state officers acting in their official capacity in exercise of governmental functions are deemed to be, in essence, claims against the State and, therefore, must be commenced in the Court of Claims"). This is because such a claim usually involves rights asserted not against the officer individually but against the State. See Morell, supra, at 70 N.Y.2d at 300-301, 520 N.Y.S.2d at 531 (holding that the State employees--not the State--were the parties in interest because claim involved duties owed by the employees as opposed to rights asserted against the State).

However, it is similarly well-settled that the State is not a party in interest when the action arises from allegations that an official acted in an individual capacity or in excess of his or her authority (see Cavanaugh v. Doherty, 243 A.D.2d 92, 101, 675 N.Y.S.2d 143, 149 (3d Dep't 1998); New York State Thruway Authority v. Hurd, 29 A.D.2d 157, 158, 286 N.Y.S.2d 436, 437 (3d Dep't 1968)) or involves the breach of a duty directly owed by a State employee to the claimant (see Morell, supra, at 70 N.Y.2d at 300-301, 520 N.Y.S.2d at 531 (malpractice claim against state-employed physician); Martin v. Baughman, 205 A.D.2d 966, 613 N.Y.S.2d 773 (3d Dep't 1994). Notably, for these claims against officers for individual liability, the State will not be considered a party in interest even though the State may have secondary liability under respondent superior. See Morell, supra, at 70 N.Y.2d at 303, 520 N.Y.S.2d at 532-533.

In light of the above, Courts have held that when a person is injured through the negligent operation of a State owned motor vehicle, he or she may sue the operator in Supreme Court. See Pratt v. State 181 Misc.2d 488, 489-490, 694 N.Y.S.2d 604, 606 (Ct. Cl. 1999) (cited authorities omitted). Indeed, that a party may sue a state employee in Supreme Court for negligently operating a state-owned motor vehicle is well established in New York. See Mark v. Vasseur, 213 A.D.2d 927, 624 N.Y.S. 927 (3rd Dept. 1995) (plaintiff entitled to maintain action in Supreme Court against a department of corrections employee who allegedly negligently operated a State-owned van while transporting prison inmates); Martin v. Baughman, 205 A.D.2d 966, 613 N.Y.S.2d 773 (3rd Dept. 1994) (holding that injured automobile driver could maintain action against supervisor in charge of Department of Transportation road crew, which was based on allegation that supervisor had negligently directed placement of truck on roadway, in Supreme Court, rather than Court of Claims); Ismail v. Singh, 3 Misc.3d 188, 776 N.Y.S.2d 166 (Sup Ct. Kings Co. 2003) (plaintiff entitled to maintain action in Supreme Court against a department of corrections employee who allegedly negligently operated a State-owned vehicle while driving from Sing-Sing to Queens Correctional facility to deliver supplies); Derrick v. Bergren, 2 Misc. 3d 396, 398-399, 773 N.Y.S.2d 202, 205 (Sup 2003) (holding that the court officer driving a state owned bus of jury members is subject to tort suit in supreme court notwithstanding that the real party in interest was the Commissioner of Jurors because that State official was acting as "a representative of the State in his official capacity as the registered owner of the jury bus"); Bernhard v. Faulds, 47 Misc.2d 286, 261 N.Y.S.2d 945 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co. 1965) (State employee driving State-owned truck not immune from personal injury action commenced in Supreme Court); see also Becker v. State, 712 N.Y.S.2d 130, 131, 274 A.D.2d 532, 532, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 07189, 07189 (2nd Dept. 2000) (upholding decision that determined State's negligence based upon a Supreme Court personal injury action brought against a state employee for allegedly operating a State-owned motor vehicle); and see 153 Siegel's Practice Review 3, Though Driver Of Jury Bus Is Subject To Tort Suit In Supreme Court, Juror Commissioner, As Bus Owner, Is Suable Only In Court Of Claims (2004).

Thus, in short, a gifted attorney will be able to keep such a case out of the Court of Claims. This will benefit your client since Court of Claims judges are notorius for ruling in favor of the defendant.


Lever & Stolzenberg, LLP is located in White Plains, New York and serves clients throughout the state, including New York City's five boroughs (The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and Staten Island) as well as Westchester County, Rockland County and Long Island. 

Additional Cities: Yonkers, Port Chester, Scarsdale, New Rochelle, Peekskill, Rye, Mount Kisco, Bedford, Eastchester, Mount Vernon, Mount Pleasant, Pelham, Ossining, Greenburgh, New City, Spring Valley, Pearl River.

Additional Counties: Orange County, Dutchess County, Putnam County.