Opinion
# 2015-044-536 Claim No. 124125 Motion No. M-86397 Cross-Motion No. CM-86823
08-13-2015
EMILIO SANTANA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DOUGLAS WALTER DRAZEN, ESQ. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: James E. Shoemaker, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Court dismisses claim based on claimant's failure to comply with the particularization requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Case information
| UID: | 2015-044-536 |
| Claimant(s): | EMILIO SANTANA |
| Claimant short name: | SANTANA |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court has sua sponte amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the sole proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124125 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86397 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-86823 |
| Judge: | CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE |
| Claimant's attorney: | DOUGLAS WALTER DRAZEN, ESQ. |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: James E. Shoemaker, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 13, 2015 |
| City: | Binghamton |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant filed this claim seeking damages allegedly incurred during the course of his employment with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) at Sullivan Correctional Facility (Sullivan). Defendant State of New York (defendant) answered and asserted several affirmative defenses. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim. Claimant opposes the motion and cross-moves to amend the claim. Defendant opposes the cross motion. Claimant replies.
Because it is potentially dispositive of the claim, the Court will initially address defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant contends that the claim contains conclusory allegations of intentional and negligent conduct without any facts to substantiate the accusations, and thus claimant has failed to set forth a detailed description of the particulars of the claim as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Defendant argues that as a result, the State cannot conduct a meaningful investigation into the matter and the claim should be dismissed.
Conversely, claimant contends that he has been subjected to an ongoing course of conduct whereby he was ordered to file false statements and inappropriately disciplined when he refused. He also asserts that he was threatened with being "locked out" of the facility which would negatively affect his ability to earn a living. Claimant further argues that both his affidavit in opposition to the motion, and his proposed amended claim provide defendant with sufficient information to conduct an investigation of the circumstances of the claim.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires that a claim set forth "the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and, except in an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the total sum claimed." Pleading with absolute exactness is not required, and the guiding principle underlying Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is whether the State is able " 'to investigate the claim[s] promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances' " (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003], quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 [4th Dept 1980]). "However, defendant is not required 'to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege' " (Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115, 1116 [3d Dept 2013], quoting Lepkowski, 1 NY3d at 208). A claimant's "[f]ailure to abide by [the] pleading requirements [of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b)] constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of the claim, even though this may be a harsh result" (id.; see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007]; Dinerman v NYS Lottery, 69 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 911 [2010]).
A notice of intention to file a claim must "set forth the same matters except that the items of damage or injuries and the sum claimed need not be stated" (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]).
In his notice of intention, claimant alleges that the claim arose "from approximately January 1, 2006 until the present" at Sullivan. He asserts that he "has been subject[ed] to an ongoing course of intentional mistreatment, hostile and unsafe work environment, intentional infliction of emotion harm, harassment and administrative hazing" by his superiors and has been "singled out for unfair, unwarranted, and disproportionate disciplinary measures" (id.).
Affirmation of Assistant Attorney General (AAG) James E. Shoemaker, dated Mar. 4, 2015, in Support of Motion, Exhibit B at 5.
In his claim, claimant alleges that he has been a correction officer at Sullivan for approximately 8½ years, performing his duties satisfactorily and in good faith. He asserts that beginning January 1, 2006 through the present, his superiors have engaged in an ongoing course of mistreatment and administrative hazing towards him. This treatment allegedly includes: disciplinary procedures based upon grossly exaggerated or fabricated complaints for which he was prevented from defending himself; verbal abuse which singled him out and targeted him to alienate him from co-workers, thereby creating a hostile work environment; allowing an inmate whom DOCCS should have known would be violent towards claimant to be transferred to Sullivan and thereafter to assault claimant; retaliating against claimant for reporting the assault to the State Police by refusing to allow him to return to work until he completed certain evaluations; and interfering with his relationship with the employee union. Based upon this conduct, claimant appears to assert causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, intentional harassment, negligence, and intentional interference with contractual relations. Claimant requests "a monetary judgment . . . in an amount to be determined by the Court."
Claim at 6.
--------
As an initial matter, claimant's failure to include the total sum claimed with respect to his causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, harassment, and interference with contact is a jurisdictional defect (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]; Kolnacki, 8 NY3d at 281). Accordingly, these causes of action must be dismissed solely on this basis.
Even if the lack of a total sum claimed was not fatal to a portion of the claim, the entire claim would nevertheless be dismissed based upon claimant's failure to comply with the particularization requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Claimant has set forth very few factual allegations in his claim. Claimant asserts that disciplinary action was taken against him based upon exaggerated or fabricated complaints and that DOCCS records were destroyed in order to thwart his defense. However, claimant has not provided any specific information concerning the matter, such as when and how many proceedings were commenced, what superiors were involved, and what DOCCS records were allegedly altered or destroyed. Claimant also alleges that by verbally abusing him, his superiors singled him out and embarrassed him in order to alienate him from his co-workers and created a hostile work environment. Claimant again does not provide the identity of any superior involved or the statements which constituted the abuse. He further fails to set forth when any specific incidents occurred.
Claimant's allegation of negligence concerning the transfer of an inmate with purportedly violent propensities toward claimant also suffers from the lack of specificity. Claimant does not indicate the inmate involved, when the assault took place, or how DOCCS should have foreseen the attack. With respect to his claim of retaliation for reporting this assault to the State Police, claimant fails to allege facts which would establish how the evaluations that he was required to undergo before returning to work were either unnecessary or took place in inconvenient locations.
Claimant also conclusorily asserts that defendant interfered with his contractual relationship with the employee union by interfering with the union's representation of him during his disciplinary proceedings. He provides no specifics concerning the conduct which purportedly constituted interference or when it occurred.
Based upon the conclusory nature of almost all of claimant's allegations and that they seemingly took place over a nine-year period, the Court finds that claimant has failed to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), as the claim is not sufficiently specific to allow defendant an opportunity to conduct a meaningful investigation and to ascertain its potential liability (Heisler, 78 AD2d at 767). Because a jurisdictionally defective claim cannot be cured by amendment (see Hogan v State of New York, 59 AD3d 754, 755 [3d Dept 2009]; Manshul Constr. Corp. v State Ins. Fund, 118 AD2d 983, 985 [3d Dept 1986]; Grande v State of New York, 160 Misc 2d 383, 385 [Ct Cl 1994]), the claim must be dismissed and claimant's cross motion denied as moot.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion No. M-86397 is granted and Claim No. 124125 is dismissed. Claimant's Cross Motion No. CM-86823 to amend the claim is denied.
August 13, 2015
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read on defendant's motion and claimant's cross motion: 1) Notice of Motion filed on March 6, 2015; Affirmation of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, dated March 4, 2015, and attached exhibits. 2) Notice of Cross Motion filed on May 18, 2015; Affidavit of Emilio Santana, sworn to on the "5th day of 2015" and attached exhibits. 3) Affirmation in Opposition of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, dated June 16, 2015, and attached exhibit. 4) Letter Reply of Douglas Walter Drazen, Esq. dated June 24, 2015. Filed papers: Claim filed on March 27, 2014; Verified Answer filed on April 16, 2014.