Opinion
# 2014-048-156 Claim No. None Motion No. M-85282
09-15-2014
CARL MARTIN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CARL MARTIN, Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esq. Senior Attorney
Synopsis
The Court denied Claimant's motion, made pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10 (6), to file a late claim, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the Madison County Sheriff.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-048-156 |
| Claimant(s): | CARL MARTIN |
| Claimant short name: | MARTIN |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | None |
| Motion number(s): | M-85282 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | GLEN T. BRUENING |
| Claimant's attorney: | CARL MARTIN, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esq. Senior Attorney |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | September 15, 2014 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
On June 16, 2014, Carl Martin filed a motion for late claim relief pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). Attached to the motion is a proposed Claim, which asserts a cause of action sounding in negligent bailment, alleging that Defendant is responsible for certain personal property that was lost on or about November 5, 2013, while Claimant was in custody at the Madison County Jail. Defendant opposes Claimant's motion arguing, among other things, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over torts alleged to have been committed by County employees at County jails.
This Court's subject matter jurisdiction is limited to claims against the State of New York and other entities as provided by statute (see Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9; Morell v Balasubramanian, 70 NY2d 297, 300 [1987] [Lawsuits for money damages are permitted against "the State itself, or actions naming State agencies or officials as defendants, where the action is, in reality, one against the State - i.e., where the State is the real party in interest"). Prisoners in county jails are under the care and control of the sheriff of the county in which the jail is located. (see Correction Law § 500-c). Here, the Madison County jail would be the responsibility of the Madison County Sheriff, who is a county employee and not a State officer for whom the State can be held liable (Bardi v Warren County Sheriff's Dept., 194 AD2d 21, 23 [3d Dept 1993]; see also Pubic Officers Law § 2; Fuller v State of New York, 11 AD3d 365, 366 [1st Dept 2004]). Because the Court of Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction of claims against the County of Madison, its agencies or employees, it cannot be a defendant in this case.
The Court also notes that, even if State action was involved, Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) does not apply to inmate personal property claims (see Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001 [4th Dept 2004]).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Claimant's Motion No. M-85282 is denied.
September 15, 2014
Albany, New York
GLEN T. BRUENING
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court:
Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim, filed June 16, 2014, with attachments consisting of six pages and an affidavit of service;
Affirmation of Thomas Trace, Esq., dated July 18, 2014.