A state appeals court has modified a lower court ruling in a lawsuit filed by an Erie County Jail inmate who contracted hepatitis A while incarcerated.
The plaintiff, James Busch, is represented by attorney Blake Zaccagnino. The defendants include Erie County and a group of county workers.
In March 2025, state Supreme Court Justice Gerald J. Greenan III denied part of a defense motion to dismiss the complaint.
The county appealed and, in a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously modified Greenan’s ruling and granted the parts of the motion seeking to dismiss the premises liability claim and the claim for punitive damages
Greenan’s ruling was otherwise affirmed.
Busch filed the complaint seeking damages for injuries suffered after he was diagnosed with hepatitis A while incarcerated at the Erie County Jail.
The defendants removed the case to federal court. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
The U.S. District Court judge granted the motion with respect to claims of civil right violations, conspiracy, and punitive damages asserted against the county related to plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims.
The federal judge declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law negligence claims and dismissed those claims to be refiled in state court.
Busch filed an amended complaint in state Supreme Court, which the defendants moved to dismiss. Greenan granted the motion to the extent of dismissing the medical malpractice claim but otherwise denied the motion.
The defendants appealed.
“We agree with defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking dismissal of the premises liability claim, which includes alleged violations of Correction Law … and County Law … and we therefore modify the order accordingly,” the Fourth Department wrote.
“We reject defendants’ contention that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking dismissal of the negligent training and supervision, negligent hiring, and negligent retention claims. Defendants’ contention that there is no employer-employee relationship between the county and the individual defendants was raised for the first time in their reply papers and is therefore not properly before us,” the court wrote.
“We agree with defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking dismissal of the claim for punitive damages asserted against defendants, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly,” the court wrote.
Municipalities such as the county are not subject to punitive damages, the court noted.
We further note that, inasmuch as there are no remaining claims against the individual defendants, the claim for punitive damages asserted against them necessarily fails,” the court wrote.
[email protected] / (585) 232-2035