Opinion
# 2012-040-096 Claim No. 118552 Motion # 2012-040-096 Claim No. M-82358 # 2012-040-096 Claim No. M-82361
11-20-2012
RONALD EDWARD WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
State's motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction denied. Claimant's motion to amend claim granted. Case information
UID: 2012-040-096 Claimant(s): RONALD EDWARD WILLIAMS Claimant short name: WILLIAMS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 118552 Motion number(s): M-82358, M-82361 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY Claimant's attorney: Ronald Edward Williams, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General of the State of New York By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., AAG Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: November 20, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss the Claim based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(2) and (7) is denied and Claimant's motion to amend his Claim is granted.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on June 18, 2010, asserts that Claimant brought an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Albany County, seeking to overturn a Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS")determination to deny Claimant's Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") request for certain documents. By Decision, Order and Judgment dated March 11, 2010 and received in the Albany County Clerk's office on April 5, 2010, the Honorable Richard M. Platkin determined that Claimant is entitled to "responsive documents pertaining solely to himself" (In the Matter of Williams v Anthony Annucci, et al., Sup Ct, Albany County, March 11, 2010, Platkin, J., index No. 7246-09, p. 4). Claimant alleges that the State has not provided him with the documents as directed by Justice Platkin and seeks damages.
Effective April 2011, the Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole were merged to form the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS").
In his affirmation submitted in support of the State's motion, Defense counsel asserts that a violation of FOIL does not lead to a private cause of action for money damages (see Van Steenburg v State of New York, UID No. 2001-015-146 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., April 24, 2001]) (Affirmation of Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., ¶ 8). Counsel further asserts that Claimant's sole remedy is an Article 78 proceeding (id.).
Defense counsel further argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter, as Claimant is seeking purely equitable relief, as pursuant to Van Steenburg (supra), money damages are not available to Claimant (id., ¶ 9).
Finally, Defendant also argues that Claimant is seeking to enforce the Supreme Court's order which is a quasi-equitable relief beyond this Court's jurisdiction (id., ¶ 10).
The Court has reviewed the Claim and considered Defendant's arguments. The Court finds that, in his Claim, Claimant asserts that Defendant has not complied with the order issued by Supreme Court and, as a result, he has been damaged. Claimant further asserts that he is not seeking money damages based upon a violation of FOIL, as Defendant contends, but upon Defendant's failure to comply with Judge Platkin's order to produce certain documents. Moreover, Claimant does not appear to be seeking to have this Court enforce the Order of Supreme Court, which this Court does not have the jurisdiction to compel. Rather, Claimant is asserting he has been damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with the Order to produce the documents as directed.
Therefore, at this juncture, the Court finds that Claimant has stated a cause of action over which the Court has jurisdiction. Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(2) and (7) is denied, without prejudice to renewal by Defendant upon the Court having received proof at trial.
The Court now turns to Claimant's cross-motion to amend his Claim.
CPLR 3025(b) provides that "[a] party may amend his or her pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties." The statute further provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just." Leave to amend a Claim should be freely granted, provided the proposed amendment does not prejudice or surprise the Defendant, is not "patently devoid of merit" and is not "palpably insufficient" (Shabazz v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 83 AD3d 815, 815 [2d Dept 2011]; Dmytryszyn v Herschman, 78 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2d Dept 2010]). "Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine" (Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983], quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025:5; Arcuri v Ramos, 7 AD3d 741, 741-742 [2d Dept 2004]).
In his affirmation in opposition to the motion, the Assistant Attorney General does not assert that Defendant would be unduly prejudiced by this eve-of-trial motion. The trial is scheduled to commence on December 13, 2012 and the motion was returnable on November 14, 2012.
The Court has reviewed the Claim and the proposed Amended Claim and finds that the proposed Amended Claim asserts the same cause of action as the Claim. The only difference the Court can discern is that the Amended Claim asserts more details in describing the underlying facts of the Claim.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State will not be prejudiced by allowing Claimant to serve and file an amended claim.
Therefore, Claimant's motion to serve and file an amended claim is granted and Claimant is directed to serve and file his Amended Claim, in the form attached to his motion, on or before December 5, 2012 and Defendant's answer to the Amended Claim shall be served and filed on or before the trial date of December 13, 2012.
November 20, 2012
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Defendant's Motion for dismissal of the Claim and Claimant's Motion to amend the Claim:
Papers Numbered
Defendant's Notice of Motion, Affirmation
& Exhibits attached 1
Claimant's Notice of Motion,
Affidavit in Support & Exhibits attached 2
Defendant's Affirmation 3
Filed Papers: Claim, Answer