Opinion
# 2012-049-006 Claim No. 120603 Motion No. M-80871
02-06-2012
SANBORN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE HUGH L. CAREY BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY, BATTERY PARK CITY PARKS CONSERVANCY, GARY SATRIANO, Individually, and ROBERT F. HOLDEN, Individually
Synopsis
Case information
UID: 2012-049-006 Claimant(s): ERNEST R. SANBORN Claimant short SANBORN name: Footnote (claimant name) : THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE HUGH L. CAREY BATTERY PARK CITY Defendant(s): AUTHORITY, BATTERY PARK CITY PARKS CONSERVANCY, GARY SATRIANO, Individually, and ROBERT F. HOLDEN, Individually Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number 120603 (s): Motion number M-80871 (s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: David A. Weinstein Claimant's Phillips & Phillips, Attorneys at Law, PLLC attorney: By: Jesse C. Rose, Esq. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Ellen S. Mendelson, Assistant Attorney General and Edward J. Curtis Jr., Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: February 6, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
The claim at issue alleges that claimant Ernest R. Sanborn was subject to racial discrimination and harassment, and was wrongfully terminated from his employment at Battery Park City Parks Conservancy (BPC), a "non-profit organization supported by" the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) (Claim ¶3).
Defendant State of New York makes this pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim under CPLR § 3211 and Court of Claims Act §§ 9, 10 and 11, on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action against the State of New York, and that the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over the other named defendants.
Claimant opposes defendant's motion, arguing that BPCA is an "agency of the State of New York" (Aff. in Opp. ¶ 2), and BPC is affiliated therewith, rendering both subject to suit in the Court of Claims. Defendant, in turn, has submitted a reply that includes an affirmation prepared by Elaine H. Bartley, Senior Counsel in the Counsel's Office of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYS Parks), in which she states that neither BPCA nor BCA are operated or maintained by, or under the jurisdiction of, NYS Parks. Further, she affirms that she conducted a search of the employment records of NYS Parks and determined that claimant has never been in any position or otherwise employed by NYS Parks or any of its subdivisions.
The Court of Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the State of New York and a limited number of other entities specifically enumerated by statute (see Court of Claims Act § 9; NY Const, art VI, § 9; see e.g. Education Law § 6224 [4] [granting Court of Claims jurisdiction over certain claims against the City University of New York]). BPCA is a public benefit corporation (Public Authorities Law §1973[1]) and may sue and be sued in its own name (Public Authorities Law §1974[1]), in accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-e (Public Authorities Law § 1984). The statute is silent with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims (compare with Public Authorities Law § 361-b [granting Court of Claims jurisdiction over certain suits against the New York State Thruway Authority]). In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction to the Court of Claims in the legislation governing BPCA, it is subject to suit only in a court of general jurisdiction (see Douglas v State of New York, UID No. 2010-030-505, Claim No. 117390, Motion No. M-77494, Scuccimarra, J. [Jan. 6, 2010] [Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over Battery Park City Authority, as governing statute does not provide for such jurisdiction, and fact that authority is subject to General Municipal Law § 50-e is "indicative of Legislative intent that Supreme Court be the forum for suit"]; Gross v State of New York, State of New York Department of Parks, Recreation & Preservation, Battery Park City Authority and Hudson River Park Trust, UID No. 2002-001-084, Motion No. M-65509, Read, P. J. [Oct. 7, 2002] ["the Court has no jurisdiction over a cause of action founded upon tort against the Battery Park City Authority"]). Thus, contrary to claimant's contention, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over a cause of action based upon alleged misconduct by the BPCA.
As to BPC, it is a non-profit organization created by BPCA as an affiliate to manage and maintain all the public open spaces in Battery Park City (see Koczka v Battery Park City Auth., 26 Misc 3d 1216[A] [Sup Ct, New York County 2010]; Mitchell v City of New York, 29 AD3d 372, 372 [1st Dept 2006]). Claimant nonetheless contends that BPC should be subject to suit in the Court of Claims, arguing that it is "funded by" an "agency of the State of New York" (Aff. in Opp. ¶ 2).
In support of this proposition, claimant relies on Turner v State of New York, 49 AD2d 269 (3d Dept 1975), but that reliance is misplaced. Turner involved an alleged breach of contract between the Research Foundation of the State University of New York ("Research Foundation") and one of its employees, brought in the Court of Claims. The Third Department affirmed an award of damages to claimant, finding that the State University is an integral part of the government of the State. Thus, when it is sued, the State is the real party of interest, and therefore the State University has immunity from suit in the Supreme Court and must be sued in the Court of Claims. The court further reasoned that "[s]ince the Research Foundation is merely an agent of the State University, it also follows that the instant case was properly brought in the Court of Claims" (Id. at 270).
However, on reargument (Turner v State of New York, 52 AD2d 671 [3d Dept 1976]), the Third Department vacated its order, recalled the opinion and reversed judgment. According to the court, the matter was rendered moot as a result of a stipulation by the Research Foundation to entry of judgment against it in Supreme Court, upon reversal of judgment in the Court of Claims. The appellate court "specifically" noted that "our previous decision is no longer a viable precedent" (Id. at 671).
In any case, Turner concerned a non-profit affiliated with the State University, over which this Court has jurisdiction. As discussed, supra, the claim at issue concerns BPC, which is a non-profit affiliated with BPCA. Since this Court has no jurisdiction over BPCA, it stands to reason that it has no jurisdiction over its affiliated non-profit corporation.
Finally, as to the named defendants Satriano and Holden, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over individual persons (see Smith v State of New York, 72 AD2d 937, 938 [4th Dept 1979], affd 59 NY2d 718 [1983]).
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that motion no. M-80871 be granted and that claim no. 120603 be dismissed.
February 6, 2012
Albany, New York
David A. Weinstein
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, and annexed Exhibits.
2. Claimant's Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant the State of New York's Motion to Dismiss.
3. Defendant's Reply Affirmation and annexed Exhibit.