Opinion
# 2012-015-393 Claim No. 117521 Motion No. M-82263
01-04-2013
SHAIKH JAMIM v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Absent a special duty, liability against the State of New York may not be predicated on the alleged errors of the DMV.
Case information
UID: 2012-015-393 Claimant(s): SHAIKH JAMIM Claimant short name: JAMIM Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 117521 Motion number(s): M-82263 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS Shaikh Jamim, Pro Se Claimant's attorney: No Appearance Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Michael C. Rizzo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: January 4, 2013 City: Saratoga Springs Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim pursuant to CPLR 3212.
The following facts are undisputed: The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) notified claimant of a traffic fine by notice dated March 30, 2009. The notice stated that "[i]f unpaid by 4/13/09 your license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in New York State will be suspended until full payment is made" (Exhibit A annexed to claim). Claimant provided the information necessary to debit his credit card by certified mail, which was delivered to DMV, according to the tracking receipt, on April 10, 2009 (Exhibits B and C annexed to claim). Claimant's credit card was debited on April 23, 2009 (Exhibit D annexed to claim). Claimant was arrested in the City of New York on July 29, 2009 for driving with a suspended license, confined to jail for three hours, and released with a Desk Appearance Ticket (Exhibit E annexed to claim). Upon his release from the police precinct, claimant went to the DMV to inquire about his driver's license and was informed that his license had been suspended for late payment of a fine. Claimant's Abstract of Driving Record indicates that his license was suspended on April 13, 2009 for "failure to pay fine" and was "clear" on July 29, 2009 when "scofflaw paid" (Exhibit F annexed to claim). Claimant alleges that he was charged an additional "$35 suspension termination fee, above the $105 they had already deducted from [his] credit card account" in order to restore his driving privileges (claimant's supplemental statement of facts annexed to claim, ¶ 9). The charge of driving with a suspended license was dismissed on September 8, 2009 (id., ¶ 10; Exhibit G annexed to claim).
In support of its motion, defendant contends that, accepting the facts as alleged in the claim as true, claimant cannot prevail since he failed to allege and is unable to establish the existence of a special duty owed directly to him as distinct from the public at large. Defendant asserts, therefore, that it is entitled to summary judgment as it is immune from liability for the alleged ministerial failure of DMV to timely record the payment of a fine. Insofar as the Court views the motion as one for failure to state a cause of action, it will analyze the claim under the standards applicable to a motion made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).
On a motion to dismiss a claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court is required to "accept the facts as alleged in the [claim] as true, accord [claimant] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see also Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). Thus, the determination is made by reference to whether "the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one" (id. at 88 [quotation marks and citation omitted]). Giving claimant the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the facts alleged in the claim fail to give rise to a cause of action founded upon the alleged ministerial errors of DMV in failing to timely update its records regarding claimant's payment of a traffic fine.
In McLean v City of New York (12 NY3d 194 [2009]), the Court of Appeals held that "[g]overnment action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general" (id. at 203; see also Metz v State of New York, 20 NY3d 175 [2012]; Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69 [2011]; Dinardo v City of New York, 13 NY3d 872 [2009]; Murchinson v State of New York, 97 AD3d 1014 [2012]; Lewis v State of New York, 68 AD3d 1513 [2009]). Thus, not only must a claimant aggrieved by a DMV error establish that the conduct complained of was ministerial, he or she has the "heavy burden" of establishing that such conduct violated a special duty owed to the individual claimant (Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 199, n 8 [2004]).
According to McLean, there are three instances in which a special duty may arise:
" '(1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation' " (12 NY3d at 199, quoting Pelaez, 2 NY3d at 199-200).Claimant here has failed to allege in the claim or otherwise establish in opposition to the instant motion (which he failed to oppose) the existence of a special duty owed directly to the claimant as opposed to the public at large (Rozell v Milby, 98 AD3d 960, 961 [2012]; Rodriguez v City of Buffalo, 100 AD3d 1388 [2012]). Absent a special duty, liability may not be predicated on the alleged ministerial errors of the DMV (see Benjamin v State of New York, UID No. 2012-041-051 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., May 22, 2012]; Palmer v State of New York, UID No. 2011-032-029 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., September 30, 2011]; Goll v State of New York, UID No. 2011-040-049 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., September 12, 2011]; Nuzzolo v State of New York, UID No. 2010-015-179 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., October 14, 2010]). As a result, the claim must be dismissed.
Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
January 4, 2013
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated October 2, 2012;
2. Affidavit of Michael C. Rizzo sworn to October 2, 2012 with exhibits.