Opinion
# 2015-041-065 Claim No. 125830 Motion No. M-87117
10-06-2015
JELANI ZULANTE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NONE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Inmate/claimant's action seeking damages from defendant for allegedly incorrectly classifying claimant as a sex offender is dismissed based upon failure to timely serve the claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-041-065 |
| Claimant(s): | JELANI ZULANTE |
| Claimant short name: | ZULANTE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption is amended to state the proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125830 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87117 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | NONE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | October 6, 2015 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the claim was not timely served on the Attorney General and additionally asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the substance of the claim. Claimant has not opposed the motion.
The claim seeks recovery of money damages in the sum of $800,000.00 because "[d]efendants continue to treat me as having a sex offense" and that this constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." The claim further alleges that the "continuous and ongoing" claim accrued on February 24, 2015 when claimant appeared before the "Board of Parole" and was told that "my conditions for parole release is that I take sex offense programs and other related conditions."
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10, a claim for damages caused by the tortious conduct of a state officer or employee, whether intentional or unintentional, must be served on the Attorney General within ninety days after the accrual of the claim.
Defendant has submitted uncontradicted proof that the claim was not served on the Attorney General until July 8, 2015, more than ninety days after the claim's purported accrual.
Courts have consistently held that "[a]s a condition of the State's limited waiver of sovereign immunity, these requirements [timely filing and service] are strictly construed and a failure to comply therewith is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim" (Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 497-498 [2d Dept 2001]; see Robinson v State of New York, 38 AD3d 1030 [3d Dept 2007]; Pizarro v State of New York, 19 AD3d 891, 892 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 717 [2005]).
Claimant failed to timely serve the claim and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the claim.
In addition, defendant persuasively argues that the claim challenges an allegedly incorrect administrative determination of either the defendant or, perhaps, the "Oneida County probation department."
Had the claim been timely served, the Court would still be required to dismiss it on the basis of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is invoked where money damages are the essential object of the claim, unlike an instance where the principal claim is equitable in nature (such as annulment of an administrative determination), with monetary relief being incidental to the principal claim (see Harvard Fin. Servs. v State of New York, 266 AD2d 685, 685 [3d Dept 1999]; Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]).
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and the powers conferred upon it do not include the authority to provide the type of equitable relief requested by claimant (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]).
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The claim is dismissed.
October 6, 2015
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion to Dismiss In Lieu of Answer, filed August 4, 2015; 2. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, dated August 3, 2015, and attached exhibits; 3. Affidavit of Janet Barringer, sworn to July 28, 2015.