Opinion
# 2015-038-576 Claim No. 123395 Motion No. M-86862
11-16-2015
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON 89-A-1042v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss claim is granted in part. Any causes of action sounding in violation of claimant's right to free exercise of religion or violations of DOCCS' Directives are dismissed.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-038-576 |
| Claimant(s): | JOHNATHAN JOHNSON 89-A-1042 |
| Claimant short name: | JOHNSON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123395 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86862 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | November 16, 2015 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, filed this claim in which he alleges that claimant gave a gold chain and religious cross to a corrections sergeant to be placed into his personal property until his return from a court trip. The claim alleges that upon claimant's request for the return of the chain and cross, the personal property clerk at Upstate Correctional Facility (CF) advised him that he/she was awaiting indication from the Upstate CF Chaplain's Office as to whether the cross matched claimant's religious preference, and that claimant's chain was broken and had an extra clasp, which constituted an altered item that would not be returned to claimant. The claim asserts "violations of [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] rules and regulations[,] for violation of claimant['s] State of New York constitutional rights (freedom of religion) Article 1, section[] 3, 7 and 11 . . . [and] for failure to supervise employees, servant[s] and officers and the facility Correction Law § 138" (Claim number 123395, Nature of Claims and Injuries Claimed, at ¶ 1), which allegedly "caused[d] claimant emotional and mental stress and anguish[,] and rights to practice his religions [sic] and interfering with his property rights to possess the cross and chain. And due process of the law for deprivation of claimant['s] property rights" under Article I, §§ 3, 7 and 11 (id., ¶ 2).
Defendant moves to dismiss the claim on the grounds that it is jurisdictionally defective because it fails to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and that it fails to state a cause of action. Claimant has not submitted opposition to the motion.
Defendant argues that the claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), which requires that, among other things, "[t]he claim shall state . . . the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained" (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]). "Although absolute exactness is not required, the claim must provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim . . . [and] defendant is not required to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege" (Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115, 1115-1116 [3d Dept 2013] [internal quotations and citations omitted]). Where the claim of an inmate does not set forth the injuries sustained as a result of alleged malfeasance, the claim must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (see Patterson v State of New York, 54 AD2d 147, 150 [4th Dept 1976] [allegations that a claim is for "personal injuries and mental anguish" not sufficient to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b)]; Johnson v State of New York, UID No. 2003-019-565 [Ct Cl, Lebous, J., Oct. 27, 2003]; Johnson v State of New York, Claim No. 111983, Motion Nos. M-72152, CM-72153 [unreported decision] [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., filed Nov. 24, 2006] [statement that failure to refill prescriptions "causes him pains" is insufficient]; see also Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 209 [2003] [failure to satisfy pleading requirements is fatal defect in subject matter jurisdiction]; Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007]). The instant claim's assertion that claimant sustained "emotional and mental stress and anguish," is, as defendant argues, insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (see Patterson v State of New York, 54 AD2d at 150). However, defendant's motion contains no argument to address the further allegations in the claim that claimant suffered constitutional injury and that his property rights were impaired. Accordingly, defendant has not demonstrated that the pleading fails to satisfy Court of Claims § 11 (b) and thus, the claim will not be dismissed on this ground.
Defendant argues the claim must be dismissed to the extent that it asserts a violation of claimant's rights to free exercise of his religion under Correction Law § 610. "In light of the remedies provided for in [Correction Law] section 610, Court of Claims decisions have uniformly rejected constitutional tort damage claims premised on violations of a prisoner's free exercise right" (Hernandez v State of New York, UID No. 2012-049-064 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Dec. 10, 2012]), and thus, any alleged constitutional tort based upon claimant's right to free exercise of religion must be dismissed. Further, as argued by defendant, any claim based upon a violation of prison directives is not viable, and must be dismissed (see Johnson v State of New York, UID No. 2003-019-560 [Ct Cl, Lebous, J., Sep. 24, 2003]). Defendant does not address claimant's remaining assertions that his property rights were impaired (which sound in the intentional tort of conversion), that his due process rights were violated, or that defendant negligently supervised its employees, and accordingly, those theories survive defendant's motion to dismiss the claim.
To the extent that defendant contends that the remaining theories must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because claimant could have filed an inmate grievance followed by a petition pursuant to Article 78 in Supreme Court, such an argument is unpersuasive. To determine whether a claim falls within the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, the Court must make two inquiries:
" 'the threshold question is "[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim" ' (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]). The second inquiry, regardless of how a claimant categorizes a claim, is whether the claim would require review of an administrative agency's determination - which the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain (see Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d 641, 642 [2007]), as review of such determinations are properly brought only in Supreme Court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757 [1991])"
(City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]). Here, while any consideration of the remaining theories necessarily involve a review of the agency's determination that his jewelry should not be returned to him, the essential nature of the claim is to recover damages sustained due to the alleged appropriation of his property. Accordingly, this part of the claim does not fall outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that defendant's motion number M-86862 is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that any causes of action asserting a violation of claimant's free exercise rights or a violation of prison directives are DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that defendant's motion number M-86862 is DENIED in all other respects.
November 16, 2015
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers considered: (1) Claim number 123395, filed October 24, 2013; (2) Verified Answer, filed November 26, 2013; (3) Notice of Motion, dated June 19, 2015; (4) Affirmation of Anthony Rotondi, AAG, in Support of Motion to Dismiss, dated June 19, 2015, with Exhibits A-B; and (5) Affidavit of Service of Carolyn Kostoff, sworn to June 19, 2015.