Opinion
# 2015-040-031 Claim No. 119444 Motion No. M-86753
07-02-2015
MICHAEL CRISP v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Michael Crisp, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
State's motion to dismiss Claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-040-031 |
| Claimant(s): | MICHAEL CRISP |
| Claimant short name: | CRISP |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 119444 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86753 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Michael Crisp, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 2, 2015 |
| 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) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on January 31, 2011, alleges that, on September 12, 2010, Claimant was an inmate at Eastern NY Correctional Facility located in Napanoch, New York, and that Defendant failed to allow Claimant to observe the Islamic Eid ul-Fitr event in the facility Mosque as was previously agreed upon. Claimant describes this as a Muslim Holy Holiday to commemorate one's successful completion of fasting for the Holy Month of Ramadan (Claim, ¶ 11). Claimant asserts that his religious rights were infringed upon, which rights are "partially covered under the custody of Correction Law § 610; and/or even his Federal Religious Rights protected under the First Amendment of [the] United States Constitution" because the facility Mosque was "arbitrarily closed without any good cause" (Claim, ¶¶ 17, 18).
Defendant asserts that exclusive jurisdiction for a cause of action asserted pursuant to Correction Law § 610 rests in Supreme Court not the Court of Claims (Affirmation in Support of Douglas R. Kemp, Esq,. Assistant Attorney General, ¶ 5). Claimant has not submitted any papers in opposition to the State's motion.
As stated by Judge Judith A. Hard in Powell v State of New York (UID No. 2014-032-014 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., Apr 25, 2014]):
Correction Law § 610 (3) provides, in relevant part, that "[i]n case of a violation of any of the provisions of this section any person feeling himself aggrieved thereby may institute proceedings in the supreme court of the district where such institution is situated." Accordingly, to the extent claimant may be asserting a cause of action for violation of Correction Law § 610 (1), the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction and such a cause of action must be dismissed.
To the extent that Claimant's allegations assert deprivations under the Federal Constitution, no action may be maintained in this Court against the State for alleged Federal constitutional violations (Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1151 [3d Dept 2009]; Lyles v State of New York, 194 Misc 2d 32, 35-36 [Ct Cl 2002], affd 2 AD3d 694, 696 [2d Dept 2003], affd on other grounds 3 NY3d 396 [2004]; Matter of Thomas v New York Temporary State Comm. on Regulation of Lobbying, 83 AD2d 723 [3d Dept 1981], affd 56 NY2d 656 [1982]). To the extent that Claimant asserts Federal constitutional violations, his remedy lies elsewhere.
In Brown v State of New York (89 NY2d 172 [1996]), the Court of Appeals "recognized that, when certain requirements are met, a violation of the [New York State] Constitution may give rise to a private cause of action" (Waxter v State of New York, 33 AD3d 1180, 1181 [3d Dept 2006]; see Wagoner v State of New York, UID No. 2008-029-014 (Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Apr. 2, 2008]). In Martinez v City of Schenectady (97 NY2d 78 [2001]), however, the Court of Appeals made it clear that Brown establishes a "narrow remedy," applicable in cases where no other remedy is feasible to provide citizens with "an avenue of redress" when their private interests have been harmed by constitutional violations (Martinez v City of Schenectady, supra at 83; Waxter v State of New York, supra at 1181). Where an adequate remedy could be provided, however, " 'a constitutional tort claim … is [not] necessary to effectuate the purposes of the State constitutional protections … [invoked] nor appropriate to ensure full realization of [claimants'] rights' " (Bullard v State of New York, 307 AD2d 676, 679 [3d Dept 2003], quoting Martinez v City of Schenectady, supra at 83).
In the present case, recognition of the State constitutional cause of action is neither necessary nor appropriate to ensure the full realization of Claimant's rights, because the alleged wrongs could have been redressed by an alternative remedy, namely, either in a Federal Court action asserting violations of the Federal Constitution, or in an action in Supreme Court, Ulster County, which is the county where Eastern NY Correctional Facility is located. Thus, any cause of action alleging violations of Claimant's State constitutional rights is dismissed.
The Court concludes that the State has established that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Claim and, thus, the motion to dismiss on the basis of CPLR 3211(a)(2) is granted. The remainder of the State's motion is denied as moot.
The Court notes that, by letter dated May 8, 2015, the parties were notified that the trial of this action was scheduled for July 23, 2015 at Eastern NY Correctional Facility. That trial is now unnecessary.
July 2, 2015
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the State's motion to dismiss:
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support
and Exhibits Attached 1
Filed Papers: Claim, Answer