Opinion
# 2016-018-747 Claim No. 128248 Motion No. M-89133
11-10-2016
SHAQUAN JORDAN v. STATE OF NEW YORK
SHAQUAN JORDAN Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esquire of Counsel
Synopsis
A violation of Corrections Law section 610 must be brought in Supreme Court, and the Court of Claims lacks the jurisdiction. A constitutional tort is a cause of action of last resort, and since Claimant has another remedy, that cause of action must also be dismissed. Claim is dismissed.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-018-747 |
| Claimant(s): | SHAQUAN JORDAN |
| Claimant short name: | JORDAN |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128248 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89133 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | SHAQUAN JORDAN Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esquire of Counsel |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | November 10, 2016 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant brings a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction, and Claimant has failed to allege a viable constitutional tort cause of action because he has another remedy. Claimant opposes the motion.
On July 20, 2016, Claimant, an inmate at Mohawk Correctional Facility, filed a claim alleging that on June 9, 2016, at approximately 3:15 p.m., he was instructed to provide a urine sample for urinalysis. Claimant objected and told the officer that he was fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and was not allowed to eat or drink after sunrise and before sundown. He also indicated that he was going to attend religious services starting at 4:00 p.m. Claimant alleges that the officer later told him that he had three hours to drink water and provide a urine sample, or he would be issued a misbehavior report and placed in the Special Housing Unit. Claimant complied with the officer's request. Claimant alleges that the officer forced Claimant to drink in violation of his religious belief and practices in violation of the Constitution, First Amendment, Articles 1, 3, 6 and 11, in violation of New York State Correctional Law section 610 and New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive Number 4937. Claimant seeks $5 million in damages.
Defendant contends that an action for a violation of Corrections Law section 610 must be brought in Supreme Court, and the Court of Claims lacks the jurisdiction to hear this cause of action. Defendant also argues that a constitutional tort is a cause of action of last resort, and since Claimant has another remedy, that cause of action must also be dismissed.
Corrections Law section 610 provides that:
"[a]ll persons who may have been or may hereafter be committed to or taken charge of by any of the institutions mentioned in this section, are hereby declared to be and entitled to the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference."
Subsection three of section 610 provides that:
"[t]he rules and regulations . . . shall recognize the right of the inmates to the free exercise of their religious belief, and to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences . . . In case of a violation of any of the provisions of this section any person feeling himself aggrieved thereby may institute proceedings in the supreme court of the district where such institution is situated, which is hereby authorized and empowered to enforce of the provisions of this section." (Corrections Law § 610 [3]).
This law does not provide for a private cause of action for money damages in the Court of Claims, but instead provides for an Article 78 proceeding to be brought in Supreme Court (Corrections Law § 610 [3]; Gill v State of New York, 13 Misc 3d 1223 [A] [Ct Cl 2006]; Hernandez v State of New York, UID No. 2012-049-064 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Dec. 10, 2012]; Davis v State of New York, UID No. 2012-015-540 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., May 11, 2012]; VanDuyne v State of New York, UID No. 2003-032-518 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., Aug. 4, 2003]). As a result, this cause of action cannot be maintained in this Court.
Claimant's cause of action for a constitutional tort also must be dismissed. Unlike the Supreme Court that has general jurisdiction, the Court of Claims is a Court of limited jurisdiction, having the authority to hear only those actions which are permitted by statute (Court of Claims Act §§ 8 and 9). In Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 [1996], the Court of Appeals, for the first time, recognized that a constitutional tort cause of action was actionable in the Court of Claims. The Court set the specific and limiting criteria to assess when a damage remedy should be implied for a violation of a constitutional provision. In Brown, the Court of Appeals held that implying a constitutional tort is a "narrow remedy" which should be available only when it is the only means for relief (Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 83 [2001]; Brown, 89 NY2d at 192). Where there is another remedy that will protect Claimant's right to exercise his religion and deter future violations, there is no reason to imply a constitutional tort cause of action (Brown, 89 NY2d at 192; Bullard v State of New York, 307 AD2d 676 [3d Dept 2003]; Gill, 13 Misc 3d 1223 [A]; De La Rosa v State of New York, 173 Misc 2d 1007, 1010 [Ct Cl 1997]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to resort to a constitutional tort cause of action since Claimant could have pursued a remedy in Supreme Court.
To the extent that Claimant is alleging any violation of the Federal Constitution, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter (Brown, 89 NY2d at 186). Claimant's assertion that Defendant violated its own directives does not state a cause of action (see Ruotolo v State of New York, 141 Misc 2d 111, 114-115 [Ct Cl 1988], affd 157 AD2d 452 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 710 [1990]).
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion is GRANTED and the claim is DISMISSED.
November 10, 2016
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court has considered the following in deciding this matter: 1) Notice of Motion. 2) Affirmation of Thomas Trace, Esquire, in support, with exhibit attached thereto. 3) Claimant's "Notice for Reply to Counsel's Submitted Motion to Dismiss Claim," in opposition, verified September 19, 2016.