Opinion
# 2016-040-014 Claim No. 126639 Motion No. M-87497 Motion No. M-87642
02-23-2016
TREVIS L. FUNCHESv. STATE OF NEW YORK
Trevis L. Funches, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to amend Claim denied and State's motion to dismiss portion of Claim granted.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-040-014 |
| Claimant(s): | TREVIS L. FUNCHES |
| Claimant short name: | FUNCHES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | Caption amended to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126639 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87497, M-87642 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Trevis L. Funches, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 23, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Claimant, Trevis L. Funches, appearing pro se, to amend his Claim is denied and Defendant's motion to dismiss portions of the Claim is granted.
This pro se Claim was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on August 24, 2015 and alleges that, on May 19, 2015 at Eastern NY Correctional Facility located in Napanoch, New York (hereinafter, "Eastern"), where Claimant was incarcerated, he was threatened by correction Sergeant Tacti. Claimant also alleges that Sergeants Bunce and Tacti conspired to deprive him of his State constitutional rights. Claimant further asserts that he was confined to Eastern's special housing unit (hereinafter, "SHU") pending the receipt of a misbehavior report charging him with possessing contraband and smuggling on May 20, 2015. Claimant also alleges that his cell was searched and certain items of personal property were taken from his cell by officers without a confiscation slip being provided to him pursuant to a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directive. Claimant further states that he was found guilty of the charges at a disciplinary hearing and the hearing officer's determination was affirmed. Claimant asserts that he was wrongfully confined to SHU, his constitutional rights were violated, that State employees were improperly trained, and that his property was stolen by State employees.
The Court will address first the State's motion to dismiss a portion of the Claim. By Notice of Motion, dated November 18, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss:(1) the Claim against the named individuals; (2) that portion of the Claim alleging destruction of property; and (3) the cause of action alleging a violation of Claimant's State constitutional rights. By letter dated February 17, 2016, defense counsel withdrew that portion of the motion seeking dismissal of the destruction of property cause of action.
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction, with power to hear claims against the State of New York and certain public authorities (NY Const Art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act § 9). The Court does not have jurisdiction over individual employees of the State of New York. The State may be held responsible for the acts of its employees in the course of their employment, but the individual employees are not proper defendants in the Court of Claims (see Morell v Balasubramanian, 70 NY2d 297, 300 [1987]; Borawski v Abulafia, 117 AD3d 662, 663 [2d Dept 2014]). Thus, the individual employees are not properly named as defendants in this Claim, and the caption will be amended to reflect that the State of New York is the only proper Defendant in this Claim.
The Court now turns to that portion of the motion seeking to dismiss the portion of the Claim asserting constitutional violations. 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 can be redressed by an alternative remedy, namely, the current action for loss of property, wrongful confinement and failure to properly train the State employees. Thus, the cause of action alleging violations of Claimant's State constitutional rights is dismissed.
The Court now turns to Claimant's motion to amend his Claim. Claimant asserts that he was deprived of a "hot pot" because of the actions of Deputy Superintendent for Security Anthony Russo which occurred in September 2015, and he seeks $50.00 in damages from Superintendent Russo. He also seeks to add Superintendent Russo as a named Defendant.
CPLR 3025(b) provides that a motion to amend a pleading "shall be accompanied by the proposed amended … pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading." Claimant's motion papers consist of a Notice of Motion to Amend and an Affidavit of Service. He has not complied with CPLR 3025(b) as he has not included a proposed amended Claim.
As stated above, this Court does not have jurisdiction over individual employees of the State of New York. The State may be held responsible for the acts of its employees in the course of their employment, but the individual employees are not proper defendants in the Court of Claims. Thus, the motion to add a cause of action against Superintendent Russo and to add him as a named Defendant is denied.
February 23, 2016
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's motion to amend his Claim and Defendant's motion to dismiss: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion to Amend Claim & Affidavit of Service 1 Notice of Motion to Dismiss, Affirmation & Exhibits attached 2 Claimant's opposition to Motion to Dismiss 3 Letter from Defense Counsel dated February 17, 2016 4 Papers filed: Claim, Verified Answer, Claimant's Opposition to Verified Answer