Opinion
# 2020-018-132 Claim No. 134291 Motion No. M-95319
08-19-2020
DEVON JONES v. STATE OF NEW YORK
DEVON JONES Pro Se LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim dismissed pursuant to Court of Claims Act sections 10 (3), (3-b) and 11 (b).
Case information
| UID: | 2020-018-132 |
| Claimant(s): | DEVON JONES |
| Claimant short name: | JONES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court has amended the caption sua sponte to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134291 |
| Motion number(s): | M-95319 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | DEVON JONES Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 19, 2020 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
A claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court on January 13, 2020, alleging a cause of action for wrongful confinement while Claimant was an inmate at Cape Vincent Correctional Facility. Defendant brings a pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR sections 3211 (a) (2), (5), (8) and Court of Claims Act sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 (b). Claimant opposes the motion.
On August 27, 2018, Claimant was at the facility infirmary when a random search of his cube was conducted. A razor blade modified into a weapon was found. Although Claimant denied any knowledge of it, he was given a misbehavior report for having a weapon and an altered item. After a Tier hearing, Claimant was given 120 days in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and loss of good time. The findings were administratively reversed, and Claimant's record was expunged on May 15, 2019, while his Article 78 challenge was pending.
Defendant states that a notice of intention was sent certified mail and was received by the Office of the Attorney General on July 2, 2019. The claim was also sent by certified mail and received on December 16, 2019. Defendant contends that the claim fails to comply with Court of Claims Act section 11 (b) as it contained no allegations about how his confinement was unlawful or in violation of his due process rights. The claim merely sets forth the date of the misbehavior report and the date the hearing decision was reversed. Claimant argues that his pleadings as a pro se litigant should be more liberally construed than those drafted by an attorney. The Court notes that both the notice of intention and the claim use August 27, 2018 as the accrual date, and fail to include Claimant's release date from the SHU.
Defendant also contends that the claim is untimely and fails to state a cause of action. Claimant responded that the circumstances of his confinement delayed his filing and that the State is not prejudiced by the minimal delay.
Court of Claims Act section 11 (b) requires that a claim, and a notice of intention set forth the time when and the place where such claim arose, the nature of the same, and the items of damage or injuries incurred. The guiding rule is that there must be a statement made with sufficient definiteness to enable the State to investigate the allegations promptly and ascertain its liability under the circumstances (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767-768 [4th Dept 1980]; see also Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]; Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441 [2d Dept 1998]; Sega v State of New York, 246 AD2d 753 [3d Dept 1998]). "[C]onclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet [the] requirements [of Court of Claims section 11 (b)]." (Heisler, 78 AD2d at 768; see also, Dinerman v NYS Lottery, 69 AD3d, 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2010]). A failure to meet these requirements warrants dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007]; Lepkowski, 1 NY3d at 208; Signature Health Ctr., LLC v State of New York, 42 AD3d 678 [3d Dept 2007]).
The claim and notice of intention here are patently inadequate because Claimant has failed to assert any allegations of what the State did wrong. In addition, they are both untimely. The Court of Claims Act requires either the notice of intention be served or a claim served and filed within 90 days of the date of accrual (Court of Claims Act §10[3] and [3-b]). The accrual date for a wrongful confinement cause of action is the day of release which, according to Defendant, was December 25, 2018. Since the notice of intention was served on July 2, 2019, over six months after the accrual, it is untimely and did not extend the time for filing the claim.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED and the claim is hereby DISMISSED.
August 19, 2020
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court has considered the following in deciding this motion: 1) Notice of Motion. 2) Affirmation of Ray A. Kyles, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, in support with exhibits attached thereto. 3) Affidavit of Devon Jones, in opposition, with exhibits attached thereto.