Opinion
# 2021-032-033 Claim No. 135101-A Motion No. M-95947 Cross-Motion No. CM-96257
04-13-2021
ECHO WESTLEY DIXON v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Echo Westley Dixon, Pro Se Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner, AAG
Synopsis
Claim dismissed for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and Court of Claims Act § 10 [3; 3-b].
Case information
| UID: | 2021-032-033 |
| Claimant(s): | ECHO WESTLEY DIXON |
| Claimant short name: | DIXON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 135101-A |
| Motion number(s): | M-95947 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-96257 |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Echo Westley Dixon, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 13, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant claim with the Clerk of the Court on July 22, 2020. The claim is difficult to follow. It chronologically recites several events in claimant's life beginning with his birth in 1971, including claimant's time in a children's hospital and several instances where claimant was arrested. Claimant now moves for summary judgment and defendant cross-moves to dismiss the claim.
The Court will first address claimant's motion for summary judgment. CPLR 3212 (a) states that a party may move for summary judgment at any time after issue is joined. Here, an answer was filed on October 26, 2020. The instant summary judgment was filed on August 6, 2020, prior to the filing of the answer. Therefore, claimant's summary judgment motion is denied.
Turning then to defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim, defendant argues that the claim must be dismissed on several grounds, including res judicata, failure to comply with the time limitations set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 [3] and [3-b], and failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
"The State's waiver of immunity from suits for money damages is not absolute, but rather is contingent upon a claimant's compliance with specific conditions placed on the waiver by the Legislature" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206 [2003]; see Court of Claims Act § 8; Alston v State of New York, 97 NY2d 159, 163 [2001]). Moreover, "[b]ecause suits against the State are allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed" (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 24 NY3d 275, 281 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). As relevant here, Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) "places five specific substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereign immunity by requiring the claim to specify (1) the nature of [the claim]; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 206 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "Absolute exactness is not required, but the claim must enable prompt investigation and be sufficiently specific to enable [a] defendant to reasonably infer the basis for its alleged liability" (Davila v State of New York, 140 AD3d 1415, 1416 [3d Dept. 2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115, 1115 [3d Dept. 2013]; Deep v State of New York, 56 AD3d 1260, 1261 [4th Dept. 2008]). However, defendants are not required "to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the [movant] to allege" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 208).
The allegations contained in the claim are difficult to discern. The rambling statements set forth by claimant render defendant completely unable to determine the conduct for which claimant seeks to hold the State liable. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed for claimant's failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (Clark v State of New York, UID No. 2017-041-010 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., Feb. 22, 2017]). Moreover, to the extent that any cause of action for negligent or intentional conduct on the part of defendant can be discerned from the claim, the latest date listed in the claim is June 2, 2005, nearly 16 years ago. Therefore, the claim is clearly untimely (Court of Claims Act § 10 [3, 3-b] [requiring a claim to be filed within 90 days of accrual]). Based upon these findings, the Court need not address defendant's alternate ground for dismissal.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that claimant's motion for summary judgment (M-95947) is DENIED. Defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim (CM-96257) is GRANTED. Claim number 135101-A is DISMISSED.
April 13, 2021
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, dated July 28, 2020; and Affidavit, sworn to by claimant on July 30, 2020; and Memorandum of Law, dated August 3, 2020. 2. Notice of Cross Motion to Dismiss, dated December 16, 2020; and Affirmation in Support, affirmed by Belinda A. Wagner, AAG on December 8, 2020, with Exhibits A through C annexed thereto. 3. Reply, dated December 15, 2020.