New York Court Case: Mark G. v. Sabol

ACTION BY FOSTER CHILDREN AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS OF DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ASKING FOR DAMAGES FOR ABUSE, ETC SUFFERED IN FOSTER CARE. TOPIC: FOSTER CAREGIVER RIGHTS

Mark G. et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Barbara J. Sabol, Individually and as Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents-Appellants. 
Martin A. et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Barbara J. Sabol, Individually and as Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents-Appellants. 
Dakinya B. et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Barbara J. Sabol, Individually and as Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents-Appellants. 
Frances F. et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Barbara J. Sabol, Individually and as Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents-Appellants. 

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 

93 N.Y.2d 710; 717 N.E.2d 1067; 695 N.Y.S.2d 730
April 28, 1999, Argued 

August 31, 1999, Decided 

Cross appeals, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered June 23, 1998, which (1) affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Walter B. Tolub, J.; opn 169 Misc 2d 242), entered June 3, 1996 in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for leave to amend their answer to the intervening complaint of the Bronx Public Administrator to assert the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations and for summary judgment thereon dismissing all causes of action of the Public Administrator on behalf of the estate of Alan G., to the extent of dismissing, with prejudice, the first, third, fifth and seventh causes of action sounding in wrongful death, (2) affirmed an order of said Supreme Court, entered June 28, 1996 in New York County, granting a motion by defendants to reargue the court's decision, dated May 17, 1996, which had held that the personal injury claims asserted by the estate of Alan G. related back to the commencement of the action by his siblings and were timely interposed and, upon reargument, modified its decision to reflect that the estate's personal injury claims relate back to April 1991 when the G. children moved to intervene in the pending actions and were timely interposed, (3) modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed an order of said Supreme Court, entered July 3, 1996, in the G. family action, granting a motion by defendants for partial summary judgment and dismissing, with prejudice, the claims in the second amended complaint, the intervening complaint of Mark, Kevin, Steven and Susan G., and the intervening complaint of the Bronx Public Administrator on behalf of the estate of Alan G., except the eighteenth cause of action in which Mark, Kevin, Steven and Susan G. allege violations of Social Services Law § 409 and § 411 owing to defendants' alleged failure to promulgate a plan as mandated by the Social Services Law, the twentieth and twenty-first causes of action in which plaintiffs Mark, Kevin, Steven and Susan G. allege violations of article XVII of the State Constitution based on defendants' alleged failure to promulgate a plan mandated by the Social Services Law, and the first, second, third and fourth causes of action in the intervening complaint of the Bronx Public Administrator in which he alleges violations of Social Services Law § 409 and § 411 et seq., and article XVII of the State Constitution based solely on defendants' alleged failure to promulgate a plan, conduct investigations, and provide services in the time and manner mandated by the Social Services Law; the modification consisted of further granting defendants' motion and dismissing plaintiffs' claims insofar as they allege violations of Social Services Law § 409 and article XVII of the State Constitution,