Opinion
# 2017-040-109 Claim No. 114814 Motion No. M-90492
08-09-2017
CLIFFORD MITCHELL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Clifford Mitchell, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
State's Motion to Dismiss granted as State is not the correct Defendant and Court lacks jurisdiction over proper Defendant, the County of Westchester.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-040-109 |
| Claimant(s): | CLIFFORD MITCHELL |
| Claimant short name: | MITCHELL |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 114814 |
| Motion number(s): | M-90492 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Clifford Mitchell, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 9, 2017 |
| 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, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2), on the basis that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Claim is granted. The remainder of the Motion is denied as moot.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the office of the Clerk of the Court on February 11, 2008, asserts that, on August 22, 2006, Claimant received and accepted presentment made by Defendant, New York State Child Support Processing Center (hereinafter, "NYSCSPC"), in the amount of $62,296.26. Immediately thereafter, on August 28, 2006, Claimant executed and tendered a Negotiable Instrument to NYSCSPC in that amount, which was received and accepted by NYSCSPC on August 31, 2006. Defendant, in violation of the tender, continued making presentment. It is further asserted that, on February 21, 2007, Claimant "issued" a Notice of Intention to file a Claim to NYSCSPC, which was received on February 23, 2007, alleging acts of: "unlawful conversion; harassment; extortion; fraud; slander of credit[;] and violation of [p]ublic [p]olicy." (Claim, ¶ 2).
Defendant seeks dismissal of the Claim on the basis that the State is not the proper party Defendant in an action which is based on facts connected to the collection or disbursement of child support (Monjeau Affirmation, ¶ 13).
As stated by Judge Judith A. Hard in Haffner v State of New York (UID No. 2009-032-172 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., Jan. 11, 2010]):
Pursuant to Family Court Act § 413, parents of a child under 21 years of age are chargeable with the support of such child and, if the parents do not comprise a single household, the custodial parent is entitled to child support payments from the non-custodial parent. States wishing to receive federal welfare funds are required by federal law to establish administrative agencies to establish child support orders and to enforce child support debts (see 42 USC § 651 et seq.). In New York State, the agency responsible for supervising the child support enforcement program is the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) … see SSL § 111-b). Each local social services district is required to establish a single organizational unit which is responsible for such district's activities in assisting the State with enforcement and collection of support in accordance with the regulations of the department (see SSL §111-c and § 111-b).* * *
After a court order directing child support is entered, the local district's SCU, in this case the New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement, establishes an account for the named child support debtor (see SSL §111-h[1]). The terms of the account are based upon the court order (see SSL § 111-h[1]). The account is then made part of the statewide Child Support Management System (CSMS) …
Child support payments are made to a centralized collection and disbursement center, operated by a private contractor under an agreement with OTDA (see SSL §111-h[1], [11]). The contractor acts as a fiscal agent for the local district's SCU and is deemed part of the SCU (see SSL §111-h[1], [11]). The SCU maintains a current balance due on the CSMS (see SSL §111-h[1]).
Here, from the documents attached to Mr. Mitchell's Claim, it appears that the local social services district responsible for collection in this case is Westchester County (Claim, unnumbered pp. 5, 6). The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction with power to hear claims against the State and certain public authorities (NY Const, art VI; Court of Claims Act § 9). This Court does not have jurisdiction over the County of Westchester, its agencies or any individual employee thereof (see Whitmore v State of New York, 55 AD2d 745, 746 [3d Dept 1976], lv denied 42 NY2d 810 [1977]; DeSouza v Support Collection Unit, Child Support (UID No. 2012-040-087 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., Oct. 25, 2012]; Reid v State of New York, UID No. 2011-040-048, [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., Aug. 31, 2011]; Lyons v State of New York, UID No. 2004-030-904 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., Feb. 18, 2004]; Webb v State of New York and The Administration for Children's Services (ACS), UID No. 2003-016-051 [Ct Cl, Marin, J., July 1, 2003]).
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's Motion is granted and the Claim is dismissed as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Claim. The remainder of the Motion is denied as moot.
August 9, 2017
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 to dismiss: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affirmation, & Exhibits Attached 1 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer