Opinion
# 2021-032-032 Claim No. 134394 Motion No. M-96199
04-13-2021
GEORGE BASSIAS ATTORNEY LLC v. QUEENS COUNTY CIVIL COURT AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM
George Bassias Attorney LLC By: George Bassias, Esq. Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Suzette Corinne Merritt, AAG
Synopsis
Defendant's motion granted. Court personnel's actions in filing a pleading are entitled to judicial immunity.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-032-032 |
| Claimant(s): | GEORGE BASSIAS ATTORNEY LLC |
| Claimant short name: | BASSIAS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | QUEENS COUNTY CIVIL COURT AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134394 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96199 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | George Bassias Attorney LLC By: George Bassias, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Suzette Corinne Merritt, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 13, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The instant claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court on January 31, 2020 alleging damages arising from the erroneous entry of a default judgment in Queens County Civil Court. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim.
The claim alleges that, on March 1, 2019, claimant timely filed an answer in a consumer debt matter pending in Queens County Civil Court. Despite filing answer, a default judgment was entered against claimant's client, who was the defendant in the Queens County Civil Court matter. Claimant discovered the default judgment on January 8, 2020 when he received a letter from a collection firm--the plaintiff in the Queens County Civil Court matter.
On January 30, 2020, claimant went to Queens County Civil Court to speak with court personnel about the default judgment. Claimant states that he was told by court personnel that the default judgment was entered incorrectly as a result of the Court being understaffed. He was further told that the answer was "likely in a pile or in a box that has not been electronically entered into the database" (Verified Claim ¶ 4). Claimant alleges that although he presented proof that the answer was filed by the Clerk of the Court by producing the answer with a filed stamp on it, he was told that he must file a motion to set aside the default judgment. Claimant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment on January 31, 2020. Claimant now seeks to recover his attorney's fees incurred as a result of alleged negligence of Queens County Civil Court personnel.
First, defendant argues that the acts of court clerks are quasi-judicial and are therefore cloaked with judicial immunity (Weiner v State of New York, 273 AD2d 95 [1st Dept. 2000]). "[J]udicial immunity applies to all acts of auxiliary court personnel that are basic and integral parts of the judicial function, unless those acts are done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction" (id. at 97 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). The crux of claimant's allegation is that court personnel failed to file a pleading and transmit that pleading to the judge for consideration. The act of filing an answer and transmitting the pleading is clearly integral to the judicial process (see Bloom v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., 2020 WL 6118828, *5 [ED NY, Oct. 16, 2020, No. 19-CV-7115 (DRH)] [defendant entitled to judicial immunity where the plaintiff alleged that Clerk of the Court "lost" a reinstatement motion]; Welch v State of New York, 203 AD2d 80, 81 [1994] [court personnel entitled to judicial immunity where claimant alleged that unspecified court personnel failed to forward a motion to a judge]). Therefore, the actions described in the claim are protected by judicial immunity.
Moreover, even if the Court found that defendant was not entitled to judicial immunity, the claim would still be subject to dismissal based on claimant's failure to allege a special duty.
In order to sustain a claim for negligence against the State involving a classic governmental function, claimant must allege that the governmental action was ministerial, not discretionary (Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 202 [2009]). However, the State can only be held liable for ministerial governmental action if it violates a special duty owed to the claimant (Signature Health Center, LLC v State of New York, 28 Misc 3d 543, 555 [Ct Cl 2010]). A special duty can be created in one of three ways: (1) by a statute that was enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) by voluntary assumption of a duty toward a private party who then justifiably relies on proper performance of that duty; or (3) by assuming positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation (McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 199 [2009], quoting Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 199-200 [2004]). Claimant bears the burden of establishing that a special duty exists, and that the State was required to exercise reasonable care toward claimant (Peleaz v Seide, 2 NY3d at 198-199).
Assuming without deciding that the act of filing a pleading is ministerial, claimant does not allege nor do the facts establish that defendant owed a special duty greater than that owed to the public generally (see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d at 202). Thus, the claim fails to state cause of action for negligence based on defendant's performance of a ministerial act.
Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim (M-96199) is GRANTED. Claim number 134394 is DISMISSED.
April 13, 2021
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Notice of Motion, dated June 24, 2020; and Affirmation in Support of Motion, affirmed by Suzette Corinne Merritt, AAG on June 24, 2020. 2. Affirmation in Opposition, affirmed by George Bassias, Esq. on July 6, 2020. 3. Reply Affirmation, affirmed by Suzette Corinne Merritt, AAG on December 17, 2020.