May v. Southampton Town Court

Full title: JUDITH C. MAY v. SOUTHHAMPTON TOWN COURT: OFFICER CHRISTIANO and OFFICER…

Court: New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Jan 2, 2019

# 2018-045-053 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 2, 2019)

Opinion

# 2018-045-053 Claim No. 131890 Motion No. M-92906

01-02-2019

JUDITH C. MAY v. SOUTHHAMPTON TOWN COURT: OFFICER CHRISTIANO and OFFICER PRLLIS/809, WESTHAMPTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT: OFFICER DEMARTINO #121

By: Judith C. May, Pro Se Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Robert E. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General

GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA

Synopsis

Defendant motion to dismiss due to improper defendants, failure to properly serve the claim, equitable relief and 11 (b).

Case information

UID:	2018-045-053
Claimant(s):	JUDITH C. MAY
Claimant short name:	MAY
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s):	SOUTHHAMPTON TOWN COURT: OFFICER CHRISTIANO and OFFICER PRLLIS/809, WESTHAMPTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT: OFFICER DEMARTINO #1211
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s):	131890
Motion number(s):	M-92906
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge:	GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant's attorney:	By: Judith C. May, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:	Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Robert E. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date:	January 2, 2019
City:	Hauppauge
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

1 Claimant added defendants, Westhampton Beach Police Department: Officer Demartino #121, to her claim in her amended claim filed September 12, 2018.

Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Defendant's Notice of Motion to Dismiss, Defendant's Affirmation in Support with annexed Exhibits A and B; Claimant's "Answer to Motion to Dismiss" with annexed Exhibits A-H; and Defendant's Affirmation in Support of its Motion to Dismiss with annexed Exhibit 1.

Defendant, the State of New York, has brought a motion for an Order dismissing the Claim pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (8) and Court of Claims Act, §§ 8, 9, and 11. Claimant, Judith C. May, appearing pro se, opposes the motion.

The underlying claim in this matter involves allegations stemming from claimant's receipt of two summonses from Southampton police officers. Claimant filed the claim naming Southampton Town Court, Southampton Police Officer Christiano and Southampton Police Officer Prllis as defendants. Claimant requested an investigation into the qualifications of the officers, proof that the Town Justice passed the bar examination, dismissal of the two summonses and reimbursement of the filing fee. This claim was not served upon the Office of the New York State Attorney General. An amended claim was filed and served upon the Attorney General by regular mail. This claim reiterated the allegations in the first claim and added allegations against the Westhampton Beach Police Department and Westhampton Police Officer Demartino for writing a report. Claimant further requests an investigation into the qualifications of Westhampton Police Officer Demartino.

Defendant seeks dismissal of the claim based on claimant's failure to state a cause of action against the State of New York in the claim; the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim as it seeks solely equitable relief; the claim and amended claim were not properly served; and the claim fails to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court is required to "accept the facts as alleged in the [claim] as true, accord [claimant] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). The review entails "whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one" (id. at 88 [quotation marks omitted]).

The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction wherein claims primarily seeking monetary damages against the State of New York are brought (CCA § 9). It is well settled that the State of New York is the real party in interest for claims against state agencies (Morell v Balasubramanian, 70 NY2d 297 [1987]). It is equally clear that 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 (id.; Woodward v State of New York, 23 AD3d 852, 856 [3d Dept 2005]). Claimant named the Southampton Town Court, the Westhampton Beach Police Department and Southampton Police Officers Christiano and Prllis as well as Westhampton Police Officer Demartino as defendants in this matter. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over the Southampton Town Court, the Westhampton Beach Police and/or individual Southampton or Westhampton Police Officers (see CCA § 9). Even though the "[Town] Attorney is in a sense part of the judicial system of the State and prosecutes criminal cases in the name of the People of the State [the Town Attorney] does not act as a State officer or employee in any such sense as would make the State liable for his wrongdoing" (Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60, 61 [1961]). Additionally, the claim as well as the amended claim fail to state how the State of New York or its employees were involved in any of the alleged incidents described therein.

As a result, the Court finds that the claim and the amended claim fail to state a cause of action against the State of New York. Thus, the Court is constrained to dismiss the action in its entirety.

Defendant also argues, inter alia, that the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim since it is one seeking primarily equitable relief.

"Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case" (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]). The Court finds, based on the facts presented, that the gravamen of claimant's action is one for equitable relief and that any monetary damages are incidental to the claim. When an action concerns the review of an adverse State agency determination or failure of a body to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law, an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court is the proper forum (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231 [1988]; Matter of North Dock Tin Boat Assn., Inc. v New York State Off. of Gen. Servs., 96 AD3d 1186 [3d Dept 2012]; Green v State of New York, 90 AD3d 1577 [4^th Dept 2011]; McGuinness v New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 41 AD3d 557 [2d Dept 2007]). The Court of Claims is a Court of limited jurisdiction and lacks jurisdiction where monetary relief is incidental to the claim (Court of Claims Act § 9).

Consequently, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the action and must dismiss the action in its entirety.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion is granted and the claim, including the amended claim, are hereby dismissed in their entirety.

January 2, 2019

Hauppauge, New York

GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA

Judge of the Court of Claims