Opinion
# 2013-009-035 Claim No. 123007 Motion No. M-84107
10-29-2013
BRANDI WRIGHT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Claimant's attorney: NO APPEARANCE. Defendant's attorney: HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General BY: Bonnie Gail Levy, Esq., Assistant Attorney General Of Counsel.
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim was granted, based upon a failure of the claimant to set forth any alleged negligence by the State.
Case information
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦UID: ¦2013-009-035 ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Claimant(s): ¦BRANDI WRIGHT ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Claimant short name: ¦WRIGHT ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (claimant name) : ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Defendant(s): ¦THE STATE OF NEW YORK ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (defendant name) : ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Third-party claimant(s): ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant(s): ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Claim number(s): ¦123007 ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Motion number(s): ¦M-84107 ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Cross-motion number(s): ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Judge: ¦NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Claimant's attorney: ¦NO APPEARANCE. ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Attorney General ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Defendant's attorney: ¦BY: Bonnie Gail Levy, Esq.,¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Assistant Attorney General ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Of Counsel. ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant's attorney:¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Signature date: ¦October 29, 2013 ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦City: ¦Syracuse ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Comments: ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Official citation: ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Appellate results: ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦See also (multicaptioned case) ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------+ Decision
Defendant has brought this motion seeking an order dismissing the claim.
The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affirmation, with Exhibits 1, 2
Filed Papers: Claim.
In her claim, claimant sets forth several allegations which all appear to be related to treatment and events occurring at the Mental Health Association of Jefferson County, in Watertown, New York on or about July 21, 2013.
Defendant now moves to dismiss this claim, contending (1) that claimant has failed to set forth her claim in plain, concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs as required by CPLR 3013 and 3014; (2) that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations in the claim; and (3) that the claim fails to state a cause of action.
Claimant has not submitted any response to this motion.
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b), a claim is required to state the time when and place where it arose, the nature of the claim, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained, and the total sum claimed (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 [2003]). The language of the claim must be sufficiently specific to enable the defendant to conduct an investigation and ascertain its potential liability (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 [4th Dept 1980]). As stated in Heisler, "[c]onclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet its requirements" (id. at 767-768)
The Court is mindful of the fact that pleading requirements should be liberally construed, especially those submitted by pro se litigants. In this matter, however, the Court has reviewed the allegations set forth by claimant in her claim, and is unable to identify any allegations of negligence or other wrongdoing that would create any congnizable cause of action against the State.
Furthermore, defendant's attorney has set forth documentary evidence (Exhibit B to Items 1, 2), establishing that the Mental Health Association of Jefferson County is a private, not-for-profit corporation, and not a State agency, thereby raising the question as to whether this Court has any subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to actions against the State of New York and certain public authorities, none of which are relevant to this claim.
The failure of claimant to specify any alleged negligence against the State is a fatal defect which requires dismissal of her claim (Chung v State of New York, 122 Misc 2d 676 [Ct Cl 1984]; Bonaparte v State of New York, 175 AD2d 683 [4th Dept 1991]).
Based on the foregoing, it is therefore
ORDERED, that Motion No. M-84107 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Claim No. 123007 is hereby DISMISSED.
October 29, 2013
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims