Opinion
Claim No. 136658
12-22-2021
Leivelle MOORATY, Claimant, v. STATE of New York, County of Dutchess, Dutchess County District Attorney's Office, New York State Trooper Zachary T. Zyskowski, John Does State Troopers 1 through 99, and Jane Does State Troopers 1 through 99, Defendant(s).
For Claimant: SCALE, LLP, By: Matthew H. Herlihy, Esq. For Defendant(s): MC CABE & MACK, LLP, By: Nicholas Tarkazikis, Esq.
For Claimant: SCALE, LLP, By: Matthew H. Herlihy, Esq.
For Defendant(s): MC CABE & MACK, LLP, By: Nicholas Tarkazikis, Esq.
Walter Rivera, J.
The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on the pre-answer motion of the County of Dutchess (County) and the Dutchess County District Attorney's Office (DCDAO) to dismiss Claim No. 136658 as asserted against the County and the DCDAO:
Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibit 1
Movants filed an Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and then filed a second Attorney's Supporting Affirmation which was designated in the New York Courts Electronic Filing (NYSCEF) system as "CORRECTED." Accordingly, the Court considered only the second Supporting Affirmation as the corrected version.
Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition 2
Attorney's Reply Affirmation 3
Attorney's Amended Affirmation in Opposition 4
Upon agreement of the parties, the Court adjourned the motion to December 15, 2021 to afford claimant the opportunity to submit an Amended Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition and to withdraw claimant's arguments at paragraph 5 of his Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition that the motion should be denied on the basis of untimely notice to claimant to submit opposition papers and that movants should be precluded from submitting a Reply Affirmation. Movants were also afforded the opportunity to submit an Amended Attorney's Reply Affirmation.
Claim No. 136658 alleges that on or about December 3, 2020, claimant was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was stopped in Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, and searched by NYS Trooper Zachary T. Zyskowski (Ex. A). As a result of the search, the Trooper recovered a pill bottle with claimant's name on it and issued claimant a desk appearance ticket for Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the 7th degree and directed claimant to appear for an arraignment before the local justice court in the Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, on January 6, 2021. Claimant maintains that he was in lawful possession of the pills. The charges against claimant were dismissed. The claim alleges damages as a result of the alleged violations of claimant's civil rights and liberties and his state and federal constitutional rights.
The County and the DCDAO move to dismiss the claim as asserted against them on the grounds that, inter alia, the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as asserted against the County and DCDAO and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over said defendants.
Claimant opposes the motion arguing, inter alia, that the motion to dismiss "must be deemed moot" as claimant has filed a companion action against the County and the DCDAO in Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Index Number 2021-53852) (Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition ¶ 2). Claimant further argues that a valid cause of action has been stated against said defendants and that, while claimant concedes that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to the State and State entities, claimant argues that the motion to dismiss should not be granted because claimant intends to move to join/consolidate the claim in the Court of Claims with the action pending in Supreme Court and therefore it would be "judicially un-economical" to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim asserted against them in the Court of Claims (Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition, ¶ 2).
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and can hear only claims against the State and certain public authorities (NY Const art VI; Court of Claims Act § 9 ; Morell v Balasubramanian , 70 NY2d 297 [1987] ). The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over other municipalities such as the County of Dutchess, its agencies, or any individual employee thereof, or the DCDAO (see Fisher v State of New York , 10 NY2d 60 [1961] [The State is not responsible for the actions of an assistant district attorney because the assistant district attorney is not a State actor]; Whitmore v State of New York , 55 AD2d 745, 746 [3d Dept 1976] [The State is not responsible for the alleged tortious acts committed by the District Attorney's Office and members of the county or city police departments]). As such, the claim, as asserted against the County and the DCDAO, warrants dismissal because the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as asserted against the County and the DCDAO and the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over said defendants. In light of the Court's finding on jurisdiction, the Court need not reach the issues of timeliness raised by the County and absolute immunity raised by the DCDAO.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Claim No. 136658 as asserted against the County of Dutchess and the Dutchess County District Attorney's Office is hereby GRANTED and the caption is hereby amended to delete the County of Dutchess and the Dutchess County District Attorney's Office as named defendants.