Opinion
# 2017-015-222 Claim No. 128103 Motion No. M-89605 Motion No. M-89712
03-28-2017
JOYCE UNDERHILL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Joyce Underhill, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim brought by inmate's mother for the loss of a TV, the purchase of which she financed, was dismissed for failing to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and for lack of standing to bring the claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-015-222 |
| Claimant(s): | JOYCE UNDERHILL |
| Claimant short name: | UNDERHILL |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption is amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant. |
|---|---|
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128103 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89605, M-89712 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Joyce Underhill, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 28, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves (motion no. M-89605) for an Order awarding her the sum of $149.70 for the loss of her son's television. In a separate motion (motion number M-89712) defendant moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that it is not a claim against the State of New York and, in any event, claimant lacks standing to bring the claim.
On June 20, 2016, the claimant filed a document entitled "Notice of Claim" with the Clerk of the Court of Claims. The form document, completed by the claimant, set forth the defendant as the County of "Washington (Great Meadows Correctional)" and expressed the purpose of providing the County of Washington notice that claim was being made against it. In the space provided for a description of the nature of the claim the document states "reimbursement or replacement of 13" LCD TV". That portion of the form provided for a statement of "[t]he time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose" merely sets forth that the "incident" occurred on March 11, 2016. Finally, the Notice of Claim states damages in the amount of $149.70. Following the items of damages, the document states:
"That said claim and demand is hereby presented for adjustment and payment. You are hereby notified that unless it is adjusted and paid within the time provided by law from the date of presentation to you, the claimant intends to commence an action on this claim" (Notice of Claim, ¶ 4, p. 1).
Claimant states in an affidavit submitted in support of her motion that in October 2015 she sent her son Adan Granado, an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, a money order in the amount of $200.00 which he in part used to purchase a 13" LCD television in the amount of $149.70. Claimant indicates that the television was not among his property when her son went to retrieve his belongings in preparation for a transfer to Upstate Correctional Facility (Upstate) on January 26, 2016. Claimant's son filed an administrative claim, upon his return to Upstate, which was denied by memorandum dated March 14, 2016 on the ground the claim was filed more than 21 days following the occurrence of the loss. The memorandum further states that Mr. Granado was denied an extension of time to file the claim because it was filed more than 45 days after the occurrence, citing Directive #4040 (see memorandum dated March 14, 2016 attached to claimant's motion). The memorandum also advised Mr. Granado that he could file a grievance with regard to the denial of an exception to the 21-day time limit. There is no indication that Mr. Granado administratively appealed the denial of his claim or filed a grievance regarding the timeliness of the claim. Nevertheless, a "Notice of Claim" was filed by Mr. Granado's mother, the claimant herein, on June 20, 2016.
The claim was served, according to defense counsel, first by ordinary mail on June 27, 2016 and then by certified mail, return receipt requested, on September 15, 2016 (see also affidavit of service filed in the Clerk's Office regarding service of the claim by certified mail, return receipt requested). No answer to the claim was served or filed. Following the service and filing of claimant's motion, in essence one for summary judgment, defendant moved for dismissal. Defense counsel indicates in support of its motion that it did not consider the filed "Notice of Claim" to be a claim because it was against the County of Washington and stated only a future intention to file a claim. Defendant argues that a "claim" against the State of New York was not served or filed and the Court of Claims therefore lacks jurisdiction. Defendant also contends that claimant lacks standing to bring the claim.
Defendant was apprised of the filing of the instant claim in the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Claims by letter from the Clerk dated June 20, 2016. --------
The Court need not decide whether or not the "Notice of Claim" filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Claims and served on the Attorney General constitutes a claim against the State of New York since it clearly fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires that a claim state "the time when and the place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and . . . the total sum claimed." "Failure to abide by these pleading requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of the claim, even though this may be a harsh result" (Sommer v State of New York, 131 AD3d 757, 758 [3d Dept 2015], quoting Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115, 1116 [3d Dept 2013]; see also Dinerman v NYS Lottery, 69 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 911 [2010]; Nasir v State of New York, 41 AD3d 677 [2d Dept 2007]; Mujica v State of New York, 24 AD3d 898 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 701 [2006]). The guiding principle in determining the sufficiency of a claim is whether it is sufficiently definite " 'to enable the State. . . to investigate the claim[s] promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances' . . ." (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 207, quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 [4th Dept 1980]). Here, the Notice of Claim did not name the State of New York as a defendant and purported to provide notice only to the County of Washington. Nor did it state the place where or the manner in which the claim arose. Rather, the Notice of Claim merely states a claim for the loss of a 13" LCD TV valued at $149.70 on March 11, 2016. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the Notice of Claim failed to contain sufficient facts to enable the defendant to investigate the matter and ascertain its potential liability. On this basis alone, the claim must be dismissed.
Moreover, claimant quite clearly lacks standing to bring this claim. " 'Standing is a threshold issue requiring an actual legal stake in the outcome of the action, namely an injury in fact worthy and capable of judicial resolution' " (Matter of Ferran v City of Albany, 116 AD3d 1194, 1195 [3d Dept 2014], quoting Aiardo v. Town of E. Greenbush, 64 AD3d 849, 851 [3d Dept 2009]). Claimant's affidavit submitted in support of her motion makes clear that she gave her son $200.00, part of which he used to buy a television. It is her son, therefore, who suffered the loss and has standing to bring the claim, not the claimant herein. Notably, in order to bring a claim for the loss of personal property, claimant's inmate son was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before commencing an action in the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]).
Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed. Claimant's motion is denied.
March 28, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion (M-89605) dated November 17, 2016;
2. Affidavit of Joyce Underwood sworn to November 17, 2016 with exhibits;
3. Notice of motion (M-89712) dated December 22, 2016;
4. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino dated December 22, 2016;
5. Letter dated January 11, 2017 from Joyce Underhill.