266 A.D. 434 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1943
Claimant has appealed from a judgment of the Court of Claims in his favor for the sum of $250 on the ground of inadequacy and the State has also appealed on the ground that the judgment is contrary to the law and facts.
The claim is based on false arrest, invasion of civil rights, aggravation of personal injuries and damages because of the unlawful acts of two members of the State Police.
The facts in this case, which are practically undisputed, are unusual. On Saturday, February 10, 1940, claimant, twenty-six years of age, resided with his parents in the city of Schenectady, N. Y. He was a high school graduate, had some college training, bore an excellent reputation and had a responsible position with a local newspaper. At about nine o’clock in the evening he finished his work for the day, partook of one sandwich and one, and only one, bottle of beer. He then went to his home and obtained permission to use his father’s car for the purpose of driving to Lathams to call upon a young lady. It was raining and freezing and the highway was slippery when he started on the journey. About a mile from the city line in the town of Niskayuna, Schenectady County, the car skidded and claimant has no memory of anything that happened thereafter until he awoke in the Albany County jail on Sunday morning.
Claimant was placed in jail about midnight and remained without medical attention until about nine o’clock the next night when the jail physician upon a cursory examination discovered that he had a broken arm, a serious leg wound which
Upon arriving home the family physician was called. After an examination he had claimant removed to the hospital. The doctor testified that he “ was in a dazed, bewildered, shocked condition.” He also said there was blood on the head and a cut two and one-half inches in length. According to the doctor, the patient had no knowledge of what happened to him and the last thing he remembered was that he was driving the car. Claimant remained in the hospital five days. X-rays revealed a fracture of the arm which was placed in a cast for a period of six weeks. The injury to the leg meanwhile had become infected. The doctor said that his patient was suffering from concussion of the brain and that concussion is frequently followed by complete amnesia. After claimant was discharged from the hospital his memory improved as to contemporaneous events.
The prosecution instituted by the police against claimant ’ivas adjourned from time to time on account of his illness. In the interval between the arrest and the final disposition of the matter the police on several occasions suggested to claimant that if he would sign a release of any claim because of the illegal arrest the criminal charge would be dismissed. Claimant declined to execute a release and on March 2, 1940, he and his counsel appeared before the justice who issued the warrant. The troopers again requested a release from claimant and the latter’s counsel notified them that no release would be given. On motion of claimant’s counsel the justice dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and remitted the bail. No further attempt was made to prosecute claimant in any court.
The claim in this case was filed on May 31, 1940, ninety days after claimant was discharged from custody. The State contends that the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction to entertain it because not filed within ninety days after claimant’s arrest. The claim was timely filed (Dusenbury v. Keiley, 85 N. Y. 383).
On this appeal the State concedes that claimant was illegally imprisoned but insists that there was merely a technical violation of his civil rights entitling him only to nominal damages. Obviously the court below took the same view of the matter
We emphatically disagree with these quotations.' The troopers made an unwarranted arrest. Claimant had committed no crime. The arresting officers had neither reasonable nor probable cause to believe that he had violated any law. The inference is clear that they knew he had committed no offense for it later developed that they made no attempt to continue the illegal prosecution but endeavored instead to obtain a release for their unlawful acts. They found claimant in a wrecked automobile, covered with blood, suffering from shock and in a very abnormal condition. The symptoms which were present indicated that claimant was seriously injured" and in dire need of hospital and medical care. The troopers knew the location of the nearby Schenectady hospital. Their conduct in forcing claimant to accompany them from place to place in order that they might obtain medical confirmation of their suspicion that he was intoxicated is utterly ruthless and callous. They made no mistake in the selection of their doctor. We reject his testimony.
The arrest of claimant was unlawful and the State is liable for all the injurious consequences to him which resulted from the wrongful act. He was subjected to an intolerable indignity; his constitutional rights were ruthlessly invaded. The aggravation of his personal injuries resulting from failure to provide prompt medical treatment, the mental suffering due to humiliation and shame because of his incarceration in jail and the unusual invasion of his personal rights are elements to be considered in fixing his damages. The sum awarded claimant by the trial court is grossly inadequate.
The judgment is modified upon the law and facts by increasing the damages to the sum of $3,500, and as so modified is affirmed, with costs to claimant.
Crapser, Bliss and Schenck, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., concurs in the result.
The court hereby reverses findings of fact made by the trial court and numbered 3, 5, 6 and 12 and annuls conclusions of law made by the court numbered 2 and 5.
The court hereby finds the requests of claimant submitted to the trial court but rejected by it, numbered 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15.
The court finds as conclusions of law those contained in the claimant’s proposed findings submitted to and rejected by the court below numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and 12.
The court also finds that by reason of the facts in this case claimant has been damaged in the sum of $3,500 and judgment is hereby directed accordingly.
Judgment modified on the law and facts,, and claimant’s damages increased from $250 to $3,500, and as so modified affirmed, with costs and disbursements to claimant.