Opinion
# 2015-016-023 Claim No. 125598 Motion No. M-86311
05-18-2015
McARDLE JOHN-BAPTISTE v. NYS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, MANHATTAN SCU
McArdle John-Baptiste, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2015-016-023 |
| Claimant(s): | McARDLE JOHN-BAPTISTE |
| Claimant short name: | JOHN-BAPTISTE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | NYS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, MANHATTAN SCU |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125598 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86311 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Alan C. Marin |
| Claimant's attorney: | McArdle John-Baptiste, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 18, 2015 |
| City: | New York |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant State of New York moves to dismiss the claim of McArdle John-Baptiste, which arose from a dispute over whether he made certain child support payments. The State argues that the claim was untimely and that its subject is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
Mr. John-Baptiste stated in his claim that: "Child support payments automatically deducted from my paycheck on 4-15-14 and 9-15-14 were never sent to my ex-wife . . . Each payment [was] $858.00, totaling $1,716. 00." John-Baptiste used the claim form provided by the court, filling in April 15 and September 15 of 2014 to Item 4, which asked when "[t]his claim accrued." To the claim form were attached exhibits A through I.
Exhibit A to the claim shows the biweekly payroll deductions for John-Baptiste's child support from September 14, 2012 through December 15, 2014, from the City of New York Human Resources Administration and printed out at the request of Mr. John-Baptiste.
Exhibit B is an account statement, dated October 20, 2014, from the New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement, listing both claimant and his ex-wife as the non-custodial and custodial parents, respectively.
Exhibit C is a December 3, 2014 letter to claimant's ex-wife from the Child Support Helpline, State Child Support Enforcement in Albany, which was in response to her recent telephone inquiry. Attached to the letter is a one-page account statement or disbursement history, which contains biweekly entries from Jan 31, 2014 through October 15, 2014. There are handwritten notes on the exhibit intending to show where the missing payments would have been entered.
Exhibit D is a letter from John-Baptiste "To Whom it may concern," dated September 27, 2014, which reads in part, "I am formally requesting an audit of my account. It appears that there are two payments of $ 858.00 missing or not posted."
Exhibits E and F are letters, dated October 9 and November 14, 2014, to claimant from the New York City Human Resources Administration Office of Child Support Enforcement. The first letter said that we will investigate, and the second letter presented the agency's findings: "As per letter dated 11/14/14 please be advised that the case is closed and no arrears owed. . . Refund in the amount $ 858.00 mailed to you on 11/13/14."
Exhibit I is a copy of four check stubs, each for a check in the amount of $858, dated November 13, November 30, December 10 and December 23 - - all are 2014. "These 4 payments have nothing to do with the original missing money," stated John-Baptiste at the close of item 2 in his claim. * * *
Exhibits G and H are copies of Mr. John-Baptiste's paychecks from April 15, 2014 and September 15, 2014.
The only exhibit from a governmental agency connected to the State of New York is exhibit C, which was addressed to claimant's wife. All of claimant's inquiries were addressed to an agency of the City of New York. Mr. John Baptiste's claim does not specify what, if anything, the defendant State of New York did that would make them culpable here. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the State of New York and a limited number of entities set forth in statute - - for example, the New York State Thruway Authority by 361-b of the Public Authorities Law. The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over the City of New York, or any agency thereof such as its Human Resources Administration.
Assuming that the claimant has advanced some implicit responsibility of the State over the processing of the data relating to payments, such would be based on a ministerial error, meaning one not properly involving employee discretion. If that were the case, the State would be insulated by immunity.
To sustain a cause of action where a ministerial act is involved, a plaintiff or claimant must demonstrate the existence of a special duty (Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69 [2011]). The Court of Appeals has set forth the elements of such special duty or relationship as follows: "(1) an assumption by the municipality [or governmental entity], through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking [citations omitted]" (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]).
The act or omission must be in the course of a governmental, not a proprietary, capacity. See Wittorf v City of New York, 23 NY3d 473 (2014); Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc., 21 NY3d 420, 425 (2013).
Clearly there was no special duty obtaining vis a vis John-Baptiste. The Cuffy court characterized reliance by the injured person as the critical element in determining the existence of a special duty (which typically would involve direct contact with governmental authorities):
" That element [of reliance] provides the essential causative link between the 'special duty' assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury. Indeed, at the heart of most of these 'special duty' cases is the unfairness that the courts have perceived in precluding recovery when a municipality's voluntary undertaking has lulled the injured party into a false sense of security and has thereby induced him either to relax his own vigilance or to forego other available avenues of protection [citation omitted]. " [69 NY2d at 261.]
In view of the foregoing, and having read the parties submissions, IT IS ORDERED that motion No. M-86311 is granted, and claim No. 125598 is dismissed.
The following were reviewed: on behalf of defendant, a Notice of Motion and Affirmation in Support (with exhibit A); from claimant, a letter to the Court (with copy to the Attorney General), dated March 5, 2015.
--------
May 18, 2015
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims