Opinion
# 2015-044-530 Claim No. 125944 Motion No. M-86621
08-04-2015
PATRICK GUILLORY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
PATRICK GUILLORY, pro se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEDIERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Aaron J. Marcus, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Court grants defendant's pre-answer motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction over an alleged fraud upon the Court which purportedly occurred during the litigation of another claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-044-530 |
| Claimant(s): | PATRICK GUILLORY |
| Claimant short name: | GUILLORY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | Because the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over any individual (Court of Claims Act § 9), the Court has sua sponte amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the sole proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125944 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86621 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE |
| Claimant's attorney: | PATRICK GUILLORY, pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEDIERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Aaron J. Marcus, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 4, 2015 |
| City: | Binghamton |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this claim seeking damages for conduct which he alleges constitutes a fraud upon the Court. In lieu of answering, defendant State of New York (defendant) moves to dismiss the claim. Claimant opposes the motion.
In order to address this motion, a brief recitation of the underlying facts is necessary. On March 17, 2014, claimant filed Claim No. 124066 to recover for, among other things, the alleged failure of the Office of Mental Health to provide him with adequate services. Claimant thereafter filed Motion No. M-85292 to compel defendant to respond to various discovery demands. Based upon information contained in both an affirmation of Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Aaron Marcus and an affidavit of Senior Clerk Janet Barringer, the Court of Claims (Weinstein, J.) found that claimant had not served the discovery demands upon the Attorney General's Office and denied the motion (Guillory v State of New York, UID No. 2014-049-050 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Sept 10, 2014]). Notably, claimant did not reply to or otherwise contest the representations made by counsel or Barringer (id.).
A review of Court records indicates that claimant has filed a second motion to compel (Motion No. M-86320) as well as a motion for assignment of counsel (Motion No. M-86655) in Claim No. 124066.
Claimant has filed this claim alleging that AAG Marcus lied in his affirmation in opposition to Motion No. M-85292 by stating that claimant had not served the Attorney General's Office with the discovery demands. Claimant further asserts that the copy of his discovery demands attached to AAG Marcus' affirmation contains a date stamp indicating that the demands were received in the Attorney General's Office on November 5, 2013 - even though the claim was not filed until March 17, 2014 - insinuating that the Attorney General's Office back-dated its receipt of the demand. It is claimant's contention that because defendant included a copy of the discovery demands, the demands had been received in the Attorney General's Office and AAG Marcus' statement to the contrary, made under the penalty of perjury, constitutes a fraud upon the Court.
This Court has reviewed the motion papers (Motion No. M-85292) submitted by claimant in Claim No. 124066 and has determined that the Attorney General's received stamp dated November 5, 2013 was already present on the copy of the discovery demands (attached as Exhibit A) at the time claimant filed the papers with the Acting Clerk of the Court. AAG Marcus attached a complete copy of claimant's motion papers which necessarily included the discovery demands that already contained the November 5, 2013 date stamp. Contrary to claimant's contention, this evidence does not support an inference that the Attorney General's Office had received the demands.
In this case, claimant is complaining of an alleged fraud upon the Court that took place in Claim No. 124066 which was pending before Court of Claims Judge Weinstein. Claimant had an opportunity to reply to defendant's opposition and raise the issue at that time (CPLR 2214 [b]), but he did not do so. This Court is empowered to hear only limited causes of action for money damages against the State of New York pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 9, none of which encompass claimant's allegations concerning conduct occurring during another pending claim. Additionally, this Court is one of coordinate jurisdiction and has no appellate authority to address any "wrongs" perceived by claimant in the other action (see CPLR 5701; Court of Claims Act § 24; Siegel, NY Prac §§ 11-17 [5th ed]). Claimant's remedy for the adverse result was to file an appropriate appeal. Moreover, while it is clear that a Court may sanction a party for conduct that constitutes a fraud upon the Court, the request for sanctions must be made within the confines of the action in which the allegedly fraudulent or wrongful conduct occurred (see e.g. CDR Creances S.A.S. v Cohen, 23 NY3d 307 [2014]. Accordingly, claimant's cause of action for fraud upon the Court is dismissed.
To the extent that claimant may be asserting a cause of action based upon fraud, this cause of action is also without merit. "The elements of a cause of action for fraud require a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance [by the claimant], justifiable reliance by the [claimant] and damages" (Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). In this claim, claimant asserts that AAG Marcus falsely stated that the Attorney General's Office had not previously received claimant's discovery demands in Claim No. 124066. Even if AAG Marcus' statement was false, claimant has not alleged that he justifiably relied upon that statement and suffered damages as a result. Because claimant has consistently asserted that he served the discovery demands upon the Attorney General's Office, he believed the statement to be false from the beginning and could not have possibly relied on it. Moreover, claimant has set forth no factual allegations concerning his purported damages. Accordingly, claimant has also failed to state a cause of action for fraud.
In conclusion, this Court has no jurisdiction to determine an independent cause of action for an alleged fraud upon the Court which purportedly took place within the litigation of another claim. Defendant's motion is granted and Claim No. 125944 is dismissed in its entirety.
August 4, 2015
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read on defendant's motion: 1) Notice of Motion filed on April 30, 2015; Affirmation of Aaron J. Marcus, AAG, dated April 28, 2015, and attached exhibits. 2) Opposition of Patrick Guillory dated May 1, 2015. Filed papers: Claim filed on April 9, 2015.