Opinion
# 2012-039-287 Claim No. 119067 Motion No. M-80421
02-23-2012
PATRISS v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, as Nassau County, and not the State of New York, is the proper defendant. Case information
UID: 2012-039-287 Claimant(s): THOMAS PATRISS and BROOKE PATRISS Claimant short name: PATRISS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 119067 Motion number(s): M-80421 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: James H. Ferreira Sacks & Sacks, LLP Claimant's attorney: By: Monty Doman, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman Attorney General of the State of New York Defendant's attorney: By: Terrance K. DeRosa Volunteer Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: February 23, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
In this claim, claimants seek damages for the alleged negligence of the State University of New York (hereinafter SUNY) pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241 and 242. They allege that claimant Thomas Patriss (hereinafter claimant) sustained injuries on September 15, 2010 while lawfully performing his duties at a construction site at Nassau Community College (hereinafter NCC) in Nassau County. They further allege that SUNY owned, operated and managed NCC and retained claimant's employer to perform work there. Issue was joined, and defendant now moves for an order dismissing the claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 9 and CPLR 3211 (a) (2) on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. After two adjournments, the motion was made returnable on December 28, 2011. To date, the Court has not received any opposition to the motion from claimants.
In support of its motion, defendant argues that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims against community colleges such as NCC because they are not a part of the SUNY corporation and therefore not State agencies. Defendant asserts that the real party in interest - and only proper defendant - in this matter is Nassau County, NCC's local sponsor, and not the State.
Initially, the Court notes that defendant has not attached any proof in support of its motion, such as an affidavit by someone with knowledge - or other documentary evidence - establishing the ownership or management of the subject premises (compare Smith v State of New York, UID No. 2010-010-002, Claim No. 117583, Motion No. M-77533, Ruderman, J. [January 26, 2010]). The submission of evidentiary proof would have been preferable, as the only sworn information before the Court is claimants' verified claim which attests that SUNY "was and still is the owner, operator and manager" of NCC (Claim ¶ 3). However, given the lack of opposition to the motion, this deficiency is not fatal (see Vicente v City University of New York and State of New York, UID No. 2011-030-571, Claim No. 119652, Motion No. M-79874, Scuccimarra, J. [June 20, 2011]).
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise jurisdiction in cases or controversies for money damages in which the State, or certain authorities, is properly a party before it (see NY Const, Art VI § 9; Court of Claims Act § 9). In claims brought against SUNY, a corporation consisting of several colleges and related institutions and governed by the SUNY Board of Trustees (see Education Law § 352; Planck v SUNY Bd. of Trustees, 18 AD3d 988, 991 [2005], lv dismissed and lv denied 5 NY3d 844 [2005]), the State is the real party in interest (see Colombo v Schwartz, 15 AD3d 522, 523 [2005]; Wang v State of New York, 23 Misc 3d 1136 [A] [Ct Cl 2008]). However, community colleges such as NCC are not part of the SUNY corporation (see Education Law § 352 [3]; Planck v SUNY Bd. of Trustees, 18 AD3d at 991; Brown v North Country Community Coll., 63 Misc 2d 442, 444 [Sup Ct, Essex County 1970]; Jessop v State of New York, UID No. 2011-045-073, Claim No. 120244, Motion No. M-80419, Lopez-Summa, J. [Nov. 14, 2011]). Rather, community colleges - including NCC - are formed pursuant to Education Law §§ 6301(2) and (3) and are governed by their own Board of Trustees (see Matter of Russo v Nassau County Community Coll., 81 NY2d 690, 695-696 [1993]; Kuznetz v County of Nassau, 229 AD2d 476, 476 [1996]; Matter of Weinstein v Caso, 44 AD2d 690, 691 [1974]; see also Education Law §§ 6301 [2], [3]; 6302; 6306). Moreover, pursuant to Education Law § 6306, title to a community college's real property is held by its local sponsor - here, Nassau County - in trust for the college's benefit, and the college's lands, buildings and facilities are controlled and managed by its Board of Trustees (see Education Law § 6306 [4], [5]; Kuznetz v County of Nassau, 229 AD2d at 476). Thus, although the claim names SUNY as the defendant, Nassau County is the real party in interest in this matter (see Solomon v State of New York, UID No. 2002-013-020, Claim No. 105328, Motion No. M-64643, Patti, J. [May 15, 2002]), and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim (see Court of Claims Act § 9; Aust v State of New York, UID No. 2011-045-050, Claim No. 119397, Motion No. M-79515, Lopez-Summa, J. [Aug. 10, 2011]).
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing and with there being no opposition, it is hereby ordered that Motion No. M-80421 is granted and the claim is dismissed.
February 23, 2012
Albany, New York
James H. Ferreira
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Notice of Motion to Dismiss dated September 21, 2011;
2. Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Terrance K. DeRosa, Volunteer AAG, dated September 21, 2011 with exhibit; and
3. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Terrance K. DeRosa, Volunteer AAG, dated September 21, 2011.