Opinion
# 2019-059-041 Claim No. 129504 Motion No. M-94745
12-06-2019
DENROY VIGO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
No appearance HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2019-059-041 |
| Claimant(s): | DENROY VIGO |
| Claimant short name: | VIGO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 129504 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94745 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | MAUREEN T. LICCIONE. |
| Claimant's attorney: | No appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 6, 2019 |
| City: | Central Islip |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
By claim filed March 30, 2017, Claimant Denroy Vigo ("Claimant"), an inmate proceeding pro, challenges an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County that granted the New York State Office of Victim Services's ("Victim Services") application for a preliminary injunction to preserve funds in his inmate account pursuant Executive Law § 632-a, also know as the Son of Sam Law. The claim alleges the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the proceeding. Claimant seeks damages in the amount of $100,000 for extreme emotional distress, as well as he release of his inmate funds.
Defendant, ("Defendant" or "the State") now moves for summary judgement seeking dismissal of the claim on the ground, inter alia, that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim. Defendant also moves to amend its answer to include the affirmative defense of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Claimant has not submitted any papers in opposition to the State's motion.
By way of background, in 1988 after a jury trial, Vigo was convicted of murder in the second-degree and assault in the second-degree, and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years to life (People v Vigo, 170 AD2d 192 [1st Dept 1991] [affirming judgment of conviction]). Thereafter, Victim Services brought a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 632 -a for a preliminary injunction to preserve funds in Claimant's inmate account (Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Vigo, 162 AD3d 1335, 1335 [3d Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 908 [2018]). Vigo answered and moved to dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court, Albany County, granted Victim Services' application for a preliminary injunction (id.). This claim ensued.
In the meantime, Vigo appealed the order of the Supreme Court. The Third Department affirmed, finding that the victims were entitled to the benefit of the extended limitations period under Executive Law § 632-a (3), and that crime victims rights to recovery include earned income. The Appellate Court concluded, therefore, that the "entirety of the respondent's inmate account was subject to restraint" (id. at 1337).
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction, with power to hear claims only against the State and certain specific entities (see Court of Claims Act § 9; NY Const, Art VI, § 9; see also Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP v State of New York, 90 AD3d 1292, 1293 [93d Dept 2011]). The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief, such as ordering the release of Claimant's inmate funds that were subject to the preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court matter.
Moreover, the Court of Claims does not sit in review of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Divison, or the Court of Appeals (see Martocci v County of Ulster, UID No. 2001-028-557 [Ct Cl, Sise, J., Sept. 6, 2001]; Vasile v State of New York, UID No. 2000-019-535 [Ct Cl, Lebous, J., Sept. 22, 2000]). Any defects in the underlying Supreme Court proceedings are properly raised in the context of the appellate process, of which Claimant has availed himself, and not by a collateral attack in the Court of Claims.
In view of the foregoing, and no opposition having been submitted by Claimant, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's motion no. M-94745 is granted and claim no. 129504 is dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's application to amend its answer is denied as moot.
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment; Affirmation in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, and annexed exhibits.
December 6, 2019
Central Islip , New York
MAUREEN T. LICCIONE.
Judge of the Court of Claims