Opinion
# 2017-015-242 Claim No. 128879 Motion No. M-89732
06-21-2017
SELWYN WALKER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
No Appearance Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the federal civil rights causes of action and for failure to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Case information
| UID: | 2017-015-242 |
| Claimant(s): | SELWYN WALKER |
| Claimant short name: | WALKER |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128879 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89732 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 21, 2017 |
| 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 grounds this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the claim fails to state a cause of action and/or meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Claimant alleges that he completed a sentence of imprisonment and was released from the custody of U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) some time prior to December 29, 2015 (defendant's Exhibit A, claim, ¶ 8). He further alleges that he was unlawfully "re-arrested" by officers of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and the Division of Parole and detained without a warrant or legal basis (defendant's Exhibit A, claim, ¶ 9). Although claimant alleges that he was unlawfully incarcerated at Wende Correctional facility for one day (id. at ¶ 10), and at Downstate Correctional Facility until January 14, 2016 (id. at ¶ 11), the date of the alleged arrest is not set forth in the claim. Claimant alleges that he was informed by DOCCS' employees that Downstate Correctional Facility was a Residential Treatment Facility when in fact it was a maximum security prison, and that he was unlawfully imprisoned for a period of 16 days (id. ¶¶ 18, second par. denominated 21).
The Department of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole were merged in 2011 to become the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (see L. 2011, ch. 62, § 1, subpart A).
Claimant's first cause of action alleges false arrest and imprisonment; his second through sixth causes of action seek damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983; and his seventh cause of action purports to allege "Pendent State Law Claims", including intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions, false arrest and imprisonment and assault and battery.
Claimant's fifth cause of action alleges "municipal liability" arising from a documented custom and practice of constitutional violations.
Initially, claimant's second through sixth causes of action pursuant to 42 USC §1983 must be dismissed since the State is not a "person" under the statute and the Court of Claims therefore lacks jurisdiction over such claims (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 185 [1996]; Blake v State of New York, 145 AD3d 1336, 1337 [3d Dept 2016]; Flemming v State of New York, 120 AD3d 848 [3d Dept 2014]; Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145 [3d Dept 2009]).
Turning to the sufficiency of the remainder of the claim, Court of Claims Act § 11(b) imposes five specific substantive conditions upon defendant's waiver of sovereign immunity by requiring that a claim specify "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" (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]; see also Davila v State of New York, 140 AD3d 1415 [3d Dept 2016]). In determining whether a claim meets the pleading requirements of section 11 (b), the guiding principle 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 201, 207 [2003], quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 [1980]). "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 [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 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 701 [2006]).
The instant claim only vaguely alleges the nature of the claim and fails to allege the time when or place where the claim arose. In particular, although claimant purports to allege causes of action for, inter alia, false arrest and imprisonment and various other intentional and unintentional torts, he fails to allege the circumstances giving rise to his arrest and confinement or the facts which underlie his allegations of intentional and unintentional tortious conduct. The allegation that claimant was arrested by an officer of DOCCS upon his release from the custody of ICE, standing alone, does not sufficiently inform defendant of the details of the claim to enable it to investigate the matter or assess its liability. Importantly, in this regard, the claim is silent as to the date of claimant's arrest and the location where the arrest was effected (see Jones v State of New York, 56 AD3d 906 [3d Dept 2008]). Inasmuch as defendant is not required to "ferret out or assemble information" § 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege (Rivera v State of New York, 52 AD3d 1075, 1076 [3d Dept 2008], quoting Lepkowski, 1 NY3d at 208), claimant's failure to set forth in adequate detail the facts which form the basis for this claim mandates dismissal.
Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
June 21, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers considered: 1. Notice of Motion in Lieu of Answer dated January 5, 2017; 2. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, Esq., dated January 5, 2017, with exhibit;