Opinion
# 2016-016-015 Claim No. 126138 Motion No. M-87520
03-07-2016
CATHERINE LITTLES v. NEW YORK STATE FAMILY COURT JUDGE KAREN I. LUPULOFF
Catherine Littles, Pro se Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2016-016-015 |
| Claimant(s): | CATHERINE LITTLES |
| Claimant short name: | LITTLES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | NEW YORK STATE FAMILY COURT JUDGE KAREN I. LUPULOFF |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126138 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87520 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Alan C. Marin |
| Claimant's attorney: | Catherine Littles, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 7, 2016 |
| City: | New York |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) | 2016-016-016 |
Decision
These two matters were each brought on by an Order to Show Cause directing 1) the claimant to show why her claims should not be dismissed for lack of service on the Attorney
General; and 2) the Attorney General to submit an affidavit from an employee with personal knowledge of its files and records as to whether the claims were served upon it.
Claim Nos. 126138 and 126139 relate to proceedings in Family Court involving the parental rights of Catherine Littles with respect to her nine-year old son. While Ms. Littles, of course, feels strongly about the case, there are two barriers to allowing the case to go forward in the Court of Claims.
As a general proposition, the Court of Claims has jurisdiction only to hear and decide cases that involve money damages against the State of New York or entities specified by statute such as the Thruway Authority. The Court does not determine the outcome of hearings involving parental rights (see Morrison-Allen v State of New York, UID 2015-016-072 [Ct Cl, Marin, J., November 27, 2015].
Furthermore, section 10 (3) of the Court of Claims Act requires that a claim be served on the Attorney General within 90 days of accrual of the cause of action. The Attorney General has submitted unchallenged affidavits from the clerk in its New York City claims bureau who bears responsibility therefor that neither claim No. 126138 nor claim No. 126139 was served upon it (exhibit A to defendant's affirmations for each claim).
The Court of Appeals has stated that "Because suits against the State are allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed . . ." (Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). The failure to comply with the limitations of time contained in section 10 of the Court of Claims Act"constitutes a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal of the claim (citations omitted)." Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287 (3d Dept 2011).
In view of the foregoing, and having reviewed the submissions of the parties, IT IS ORDERED that motion nos. M-87520 and M-87521 are granted and claim Nos. 126138 and 126139 are dismissed.
The Court reviewed from defendant State of New York: 1) in motion M-87520, an Order to Show Cause and an Affirmation (with exhibit A); 2) in motion M-87521, an Order to Show Cause and an Affirmation (with exhibit A). The Court reviewed from claimant Catherine Littles, a combined submission on both motions, entitled: Order to Show Cause Motion No. M-87520 [and] M-87521 (with exhibits A through C) . --------
March 7, 2016
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims