Opinion
# 2015-016-034 Claim No. 125919 Motion No. M-86633
07-02-2015
MARY IGIEHON v. TIM WIND, SR. CLERK, BRONX HOUSING COURT, CLERKS ET AL.
Mary Igiehon, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2015-016-034 |
| Claimant(s): | MARY IGIEHON |
| Claimant short name: | IGIEHON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | TIM WIND, SR. CLERK, BRONX HOUSING COURT, CLERKS ET AL. |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125919 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86633 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Alan C. Marin |
| Claimant's attorney: | Mary Igiehon, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 2, 2015 |
| City: | New York |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant State of New York has moved to dismiss Mary Igiehon's claim; for her part, Ms. Igiehon did not submit any papers in opposition. The claim is handwritten and not completely clear, but apparently arose from when claimant, in Bronx Housing Court, "made two (2) attempts to file several documents with respect to [an] order to show cause for a finding of harassment. . ."
Ms. Igiehon refers to having to refile the "same documents a week after" and then states that, "once again claimant documents [were] destroyed, mutilated . . ." The caption lists as defendants a named individual described as "Sr. Clerk, Bronx Housing Court" and "Clerks et al."
A claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims, and a slightly different one was served on the Bronx Housing Court. The former has an accrual date of March 5, 2015, and the one filed with the Housing Court has a March 25, 2015 date. The two claims are otherwise the same, except that item 5 of the claim form, which asks for items of damage or injuries, contains the following on the Housing Court claim, but drops the last item on the other filed claim:
See exhibits A and B to defendant's Affirmation in Support.
"Breach of Oath Contract and Treason
Denial of Reasonable Defense Argument
Conspiracy and Fraud
Perjury, Subordination of Perjury and Racketeering (criminal)
Criminal Interference with right to fair housing"
Both versions of the claim specify total dollar amounts for damages, but it lists $100,000 on page 1 and $150,000 on page 2. Note that Chapter 606 of the Laws of 2007 eliminated the requirement of pleading the total amount of damages in a personal injury suit brought in the Court of Claims.
Even given the ambiguity inherent here, most if not all, of Ms. Igiehon's causes of action are outside of the scope of the Court of Claims, whose authority is essentially limited to suits for money damages sounding in tort or contract against the State and entities specified in statute, such as the Thruway Authority. In fact, a part of item 2 of the claim states: "Claimant is hereby requesting a Declaratory Judgment and Punitive Damages." The Court of Claims is not empowered to order either such remedy.
The Court of Appeals has stated that "Because suits against the State are allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed . . ." (Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). In Dreger, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of two suits in the Court of Claims because the cases were initiated with service by regular mail, not certified mail, return receipt requested, as the Court of Claims Act (the "Act") provides.
Similarly, if a claim is not served within the 90-day limitations period, it is jurisdictionally defective and will be dismissed upon motion (Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782 [2d Dept 1984]); the case is also subject to dismissal if service is not made upon the Attorney General (Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721 [1989]).
Moreover, a claim must strictly adhere to the substantive pleading requirements of the Act (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007]): section 11(b) requires that a claim for personal injuries state the time when and the place where such claim arose, the nature of the claim and the items of damages or injuries claimed. Leaving aside the issue of the two different accrual dates referred to above, the nature of Ms. Igiehon's claim cannot be discerned from the so-called four corners of her pleading. To the extent that the basis of this case may well be harassment of a tenant by her landlord, such suit belongs in Housing Court, with any appeal to the Appellate Term of Supreme Court.
* * *
Ms. Igiehon's claim was not timely served upon the Attorney General and does not comply with the substantive requirement of the Court of Claims Act that the nature of the claim be specified, which, among other things, results in the fact that it does not provide sufficient information to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, and having reviewed what was submitted, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion No. M-86633 is granted, and claim No.125919 is dismissed.
From the defendant, the Court reviewed a Notice of Motion and an Affirmation in Support (with exhibits A and B). As noted, no papers in opposition were submitted by claimant.
--------
July 2, 2015
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims