Opinion
# 2021-053-519 Claim No. 134568 Motion No. M-96081
04-07-2021
BRENT J. MANZ v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NY, STATE OF NY, HOLLY SLOMAN, DR. DAVID HEFFLER (MHU), JOLIE CURTIS, ASHLEY KRASKAN, WILLIAM COLLINS, DENNIS RANKIN, SHERRIF OFFICER, ULSTER COUNTY, TRUCY AKA TUEY, JUDGE MURPHY, UNDER THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.
BRENT J. MANZ, Pro Se HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: Carlton K. Brownell, III, Esq.
Synopsis
The State's motion to dismiss this pro se claim on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that service of the claim was both improper and untimely is granted.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-053-519 |
| Claimant(s): | BRENT J. MANZ |
| Claimant short name: | MANZ |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NY, STATE OF NY, HOLLY SLOMAN, DR. DAVID HEFFLER (MHU), JOLIE CURTIS, ASHLEY KRASKAN, WILLIAM COLLINS, DENNIS RANKIN, SHERRIF OFFICER, ULSTER COUNTY, TRUCY AKA TUEY, JUDGE MURPHY, UNDER THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134568 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96081 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | J. DAVID SAMPSON |
| Claimant's attorney: | BRENT J. MANZ, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: Carlton K. Brownell, III, Esq. |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 7, 2021 |
| City: | Buffalo |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Pro se claimant Brent J. Manz generally alleges in claim no. 134568 causes of action for malicious prosecution, unlawful imprisonment and violations of his human and constitutional rights. Defendants move by motion no. M-96081 to dismiss the claim on jurisdictional grounds. Claimant opposes the motion.
In opposition to defendant's motion, claimant submitted a voluminous stack of documents and exhibits regarding criminal proceedings dating back to 2014. It does not appear as if these papers were filed with the Clerk of the Court in Albany or that a copy was provided to defendant's counsel. The Court will not consider these documents other than paragraphs 5 and 6 of claimant's "Show Cause Petition" as these are the only paragraphs which appear to address the jurisdictional issues raised by this motion.
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction, with the authority to hear claims against the State of New York and certain public authorities for the torts of their officers and employees (NY Const Art VI, Court of Claims Act § 9). Individuals cannot be sued in their individual capacities in the Court of Claims, even if they are employees of the State of New York (Smith v State of New York, 72 AD2d 937 [4th Dept 1979]). In addition, claims against a State officer for conduct undertaken in an official capacity and in the exercise of an official governmental function are essentially claims against the State of New York (Morell v Balasubramanian, 70 NY2d 297 [1987]; Woodward v State of New York, 23 AD3d 852 [3d Dept 2005]).
By separate motion, individually named defendant Dr. David Heffler moved to dismiss the claim as against him for lack of jurisdiction. As Dr. Heffler was not an employee of the State and as the court has no jurisdiction over individuals, claim 134568 was dismissed as against him and as against all other individually named defendants in their individual capacities (see Manz v State of New York, et al, UID No.: 2020-053-545 [Ct Cl, Sampson, J., Dec. 9, 2020]).
According to Assistant Attorney General Carlton K. Brownell, III, the Judge Murphy referred to in the caption of the claim is a Niagara County Court Judge, the Hon. Matthew J. Murphy. Actions taken by a State-employed judge are cloaked with absolute judicial immunity unless the challenged conduct was taken outside of the judge's official capacity or in the clear absence of jurisdiction (Stega v New York Downtown Hosp., 31 NY3d 661 [2018]). There are no allegations in the claim which even allege that any action taken by Judge Murphy or that any hearing conducted by him was performed outside of his official capacity or that he was acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Judge Murphy's actions or decisions are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
In addition, the State may not be held liable for the actions of named defendant Holly Sloman. According to Assistant Attorney General Brownell, the "Holly Sloman"named in the caption refers to Niagara County Assistant District Attorney Holly Sloma. Moreover, according to the affidavit of service attached to the claim (Defendant's Exhibit A) at least one or more of the named defendants are Niagara County Probation Officers, and "Tuey" most likely refers to Deputy Lilian Tuey of the Ulster County Sheriff's Department. The State is not liable for the actions of County or City employees (see Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60 (1961); Bardi v Warren County Sheriff's Dept., 194 AD2d 21 [3d Dept 1993]; Whitmore v State of New York, 55 AD2d 745 [3d Dept 1976]).
The State further alleges in this motion that the claim fails to state a cause of action. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must state the time when and place where the claim arose, the nature of same and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained. These are substantive jurisdictional requirements and the failure to plead any one of them results in the dismissal of the claim (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007]; Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 [2003]). The only date mentioned in the claim is the alleged accrual date. There is no mention in the claim of what occurred on that date, what the State did or did not do on that date, and no mention as to how the claimant was injured. In addition, the claim is almost entirely indecipherable and does not include the basic elements of any cause of action. As such, the claim fails to state a cause of action.
Finally, defendant moves to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the claim was improperly and untimely served. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 10 (3), 10 (3-b) and 11 (a) (i), a claim must be served upon the Attorney General personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested within ninety days after accrual of the claim. The filing and service requirements of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional and must be strictly construed (Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721 [1989]). The failure to properly serve a copy of the claim upon the Attorney General personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested in a timely manner, divests the Court of jurisdiction, requiring dismissal of the claim.
The preprinted form affidavit of service attached to the claim indicates that the claim was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the individually named defendants. It does not indicate service by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the State or the Attorney General of the State of New York. In addition, the copy of the envelope in which the claim was served (Defendant's Exhibit C), shows none of the indicia or remains of a certified mail sticker and claimant has failed to come forward with a copy of the green return receipt card indicating service by certified mail, return receipt requested. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the claim was served upon the Attorney General by an unauthorized method of service, depriving the Court of jurisdiction and requiring dismissal of the claim (Tuszynski v State of New York, 156 AD3d 1472 [4th Dept 2017]).
The defendant also moves to dismiss the claim as being jurisdictionally defective as it was untimely served. Whether sounding in negligence or in an intentional tort, a claim must be served upon the Attorney General within ninety days after accrual of the claim (Court of Claims Act §§ 10 (3) and 10 (3-b). Claimant alleges that the claim accrued on December 5, 2019 (Defendant's Exhibit A). The claim does not, however, indicate what happened on December 5, 2019 or state which cause of action generally alleged in the claim accrued on that date. As it is the only date in the claim, the Court will utilize it as a possible accrual date. If the accrual date was December 5, 2019 and the claim was served upon the Attorney General on March 5, 2020, as indicated on the copy of the claim and envelope in which the claim was served (Defendant's Exhibits A and C), the claim was untimely as it was served more than ninety days after accrual.
Governor Cuomo's Executive Order 202.8 which tolled the deadline for the commencement, filing or service of legal actions (see Defendant's Exhibit D) does not apply to the present claim as the ninety day statutory period had expired prior to March 20, 2020, the effective date of the Governor's first executive order.
In opposition, claimant alleges in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his "Show Cause Petition" that his claim was timely served under the mailbox rule. Pursuant to the mailbox rule (CPLR 2103 [b]), service upon a party's attorney by mail is complete upon mailing. The mailbox rule does not apply here as Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) specifically requires that service of a claim by mail upon the Attorney General be accomplished by certified mail, return receipt requested, and that service upon the Attorney General by this method "shall not be complete until the claim ... is received in the office of the attorney general," As the claim was received by the Attorney General more than ninety days after the accrual date, the claim is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed (Torres v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1471 [4th Dept 2013]; Johnson v State of New York, UID No. 2018-038-543 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., April 24, 2018]).
Based on the foregoing, the claim is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed. Accordingly, defendant's motion no. M-96081 is granted and claim no. 134568 is dismissed.
April 7, 2021
Buffalo, New York
J. DAVID SAMPSON
Judge of the Court of Claims The following were read and considered by the Court: 1. Notice of motion and affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Carlton K. Brownell, III, Esq., dated October 19, 2020, with annexed Exhibits A-D; 2. Claimant's "Show Cause Petition in Opposition of Motion Dismiss Plaintiff Petition".
See footnote #1.