Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cohen v. State of NY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 15, 1976No. Claim 57074Published

1Dissent

*499Reynolds, J. (dissenting).

We cannot agree that the State should be liable for the tragic death of claimant’s intestate on the basis of the evidence presented in the instant record. Concededly, the only duty the State owed to the decedent was to exercise reasonable care to protect him from himself (e.g., Hirsh v State of New York, 8 NY2d 125). The majority does not find such a lack of care on the basis of negligence on the part of Dr. Sverd, thus implicitly finding his actions to constitute no more than an error in judgment, or in the decision to utilize "milieu therapy” or the "open door…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hirsh v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
  2. Kardas v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API