Whether the State may be held liable in negligence when a juvenile youth escapes from a State-run juvenile institution and criminally assaults a citizen.

No. The supervision of youths in a State-run juvenile facility is governmental, rather than proprietary, in nature. The State, therefore, is immune from tort liability.

Plaintiff sued the State of New York for negligence in allowing a juvenile youth to escape from a State-run Division for Youth (DFY) facility, robbing and assaulting Plaintiff. The Court of Claims rejected the claim for lack of a "meritorious" basis. The Appellate Division affirmed on the grounds that the claim was based on State actions that represent a governmental function, for which the State is immune from tort liability absent a special relationship between the State and the injured party.

In deciding whether a State activity is governmental or proprietary in nature, and thus whether the State is immune or liable in tort, courts must examine the capacity in which the specific act or omission occurred that led to the claimed injury. In this case, the Court found the State's role in the exaped of a juvenile from a DFY facility is governmental in nature, and provides for immunity from tort liablity. The Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that the State's role in supervising juveniles is proprietary in nature because the State acts in place of a child's parent by taking custody and responsibility over the youth's development. The Court reasoned that while the State is responsible for the rehabilitation of juveniles, another objective of the State's detention and supervision of the dangerous youths is to protect the community at large, an activity unique to governmental entities.

The Court dismissed Plaintiff's argument for liability based upon State liability in tort for the negligent supervision of mentally ill patients at a State-operated psychiatric hospital. The State's role in psychiatric care is similar to services offered in the private sector, and thus is proprietary in nature. The Court, however, clarified that tort liability in such cases flows from the State's negligence in supplying services traditionally provided by private entities. The State's role in operating the DFY facility, however, has no counterpart in the private sector, and is therefore governmental in nature.