finding that in the absence of county legislation assuming responsibility for actions of sheriff based on theory of respondeat superior, a county may not be held responsible for the actions of its sheriffSummary of this case from Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Village of Union Springs
April 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: A county may not be held responsible for the negligent acts of the Sheriff and his deputies on the theory of respondeat superior, in the absence of a local law assuming such responsibility (see, Schulik v County of Monroe, 202 A.D.2d 960; Wilson v Sponable, 81 A.D.2d 1, 10-12, appeal dismissed 54 N.Y.2d 834; cf., Barr v County of Albany, 50 N.Y.2d 247, 256-257). The 1989 amendment to New York Constitution, article XIII, § 13 (a) merely allows a county to accept responsibility for the negligent acts of the Sheriff; it does not impose liability upon the county for the acts of the Sheriff or his deputies on a theory of respondeat superior (see, Wilson v Sponable, supra, at 11-12). Oneida County failed to provide evidence that it had no local law whereby it assumed liability for the acts of the Sheriff and his deputies (cf., Schulik v County of Monroe, supra). Consequently, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied.