Opinion
# 2014-015-031 Claim No. 124594 Motion No. M-85554
12-22-2014
ARTHUR L. MERCER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Arthur L. Mercer, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Court of claims lacks jurisdiction over claim seeking money damages for alleged administrative error in assigning claimant sex offender status and imposing certain conditions relating thereto. Claim also failed to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Case information
| UID: | 2014-015-031 |
| Claimant(s): | ARTHUR L. MERCER |
| Claimant short name: | MERCER |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | Named as defendants in both their individual and official capacities were Andrew M. Cuomo, Anthony J. Annucci, Tina M. Stanford and Myra Palmer. The caption is amended, sua sponte, to reflect the State of New York as the only properly named defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124594 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85554 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Arthur L. Mercer, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 22, 2014 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the instant claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (8) on the ground the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In support of its motion, defendant contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction over that portion of the claim which would require review of an administrative determination in which claimant alleges he was improperly assigned sex offender status, and that the allegations in the claim are insufficient to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Both a notice of intention to file a claim and a claim with an attached summons and complaint were submitted in support of the motion. The notice of intention (defendant's Exhibit A) alleges that the defendant considers claimant a "discretionary sex offender" based upon charges which had been brought against him in the State of New Jersey (id. at p. 1) . With respect to these charges, claimant alleges that he was not indicted in one case and was found not guilty by a jury in another. Notwithstanding the favorable termination of the criminal proceedings brought against him, claimant alleges he was required to enter a sex offender program as a condition of his release from prison to parole supervision in New York. He further alleges that, once released to parole, he was required to stay in a hotel reserved for sex offenders and that his Parole Officer informed his then-girlfriend that claimant was not permitted to use a computer because he was a sex offender. In addition, claimant asserts that the Parole Officer's case summary report erroneously indicates that he is a "multi-state offender having two sexual assault charges" but fails to reflect that the charges were dismissed (defendant's Exhibit A, p.1). Defense counsel indicates that the notice of intention was mailed to the Governor's Office but not the Attorney General's Office.
A notice of claim with an attached summons and complaint raises similar allegations. The notice of claim, like the notice of intention, indicates that the defendant considers claimant a "discretionary sex offender" based upon charges for which he was either found not guilty or which resulted in no indictment, and repeats the allegation regarding the incorrect information imparted to his then-girlfriend by his Parole Officer (defendant's Exhibit B, Notice of Claim, ¶ 5). In addition, the notice of claim adds the allegation that, as a result of this conduct, claimant's character has been defamed and defendant is guilty of libel and/or slander. The date the alleged defamatory statements were made is not alleged in the claim.
The complaint attached to the claim alleges the facts set forth above, and adds the allegation that claimant was arrested by his Parole Officer, Myra Palmer, on March 27, 2014 (defendant's Exhibit B, ¶ 5). Claimant repeats the allegation that the Parole Officer's case summary report erroneously indicates that claimant is a "multi-state offender having two sexual assault charges" (id. at ¶ 5) and that he was never convicted of sexual assault (id. at ¶ 6) . Claimant seeks damages against the State for branding him a sex offender and imposing conditions on his parole which were unwarranted. Claimant also seeks damages for defamation. The date the alleged defamatory statements were made is not alleged in the complaint attached to the claim.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to claims for money damages (NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9). As a result, this Court "does not have jurisdiction where an administrative procedure is available and the claim, in essence, "would require review of an administrative agency's determination" (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v State of New York, 86 AD3d 820, 820 [3d Dept 2011], citing Carver v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1393, 1394, [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]; City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1143-1144 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [3d Dept 2005]). Here, claimant is seeking damages based upon an administrative determination designating him a sex offender, which he asserts is erroneous. Inasmuch as an evaluation of his claim for money damages would require the Court to review an administrative determination, and the propriety thereof, his recourse is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 in the Supreme Court, not an action for money damages in the Court of Claims (see e.g. Matter of Eves v New York State Div. of Parole, 39 AD3d 1002 [3d Dept 2007]; Matter of Rodriguez v Parker, 38 AD3d 1021 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007]; Matter of Rodriguez v Johnson, 4 AD3d 216 [1st Dept 2004]).
Moreover, the date the alleged defamatory statements were made by claimant's parole officer is not alleged in the claim. Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires that a claim state "the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and . . . the total sum claimed." The purpose of these pleading requirements " 'is to provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable [defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability' " (Jones v State of New York, 56 AD3d 906, 907 [3d Dept 2008], quoting Sinski v State of New York, 265 AD2d 319, 319 [2d Dept 1999]). Here, the claim fails to meet this standard as the time when and the place where the claim arose is not alleged in either the claim or the complaint attached thereto. The requirements of §11 (b) being jurisdictional (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]), the failure to satisfy any one of them requires dismissal (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007]; see also Davis v State of New York, 64 AD3d 1197 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 66 AD3d 1504 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 717 [2010]; Wilson v State of New York, 61 AD3d 1367 [4th Dept 2009]; Hogan v State of New York, 59 AD3d 754 [3d Dept 2009]; Nasir v State of New York, 41 AD3d 677 [2d Dept 2007]). As a result, the claim is subject to dismissal for failure to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
December 22, 2014
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
Notice of motion dated August 22, 2014;
Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner dated August 22, 2014 with exhibits;
Notice of motion in opposition dated September 29, 2014;
"Affirmation" of Arthur L. Mercer dated September 29, 2014.