Opinion
# 2015-009-032 Claim No. 125952 Motion No. M-86638
12-01-2015
JAMES P. MHINAv. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JAMES P. MHINA, PRO SE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Ray A. Kyles, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel.
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment on his unjust conviction and imprisonment claim was denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-009-032 |
| Claimant(s): | JAMES P. MHINA |
| Claimant short name: | MHINA |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption of this claim to reflect the only proper parties before the Court, as set forth in this Decision and Order. |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125952 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86638 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. |
| Claimant's attorney: | JAMES P. MHINA, PRO SE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Ray A. Kyles, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel. |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 1, 2015 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, proceeding pro se, has brought this motion seeking an order of summary judgment on his unjust conviction and imprisonment claim.
The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion; Motion, with Exhibits 1, 2
Affirmation in Opposition 3
Filed Papers: Claim, with attachments.
Initially, the Court notes that this claim was filed in the name of "J & W Trading & Leasing Inc., James P. Mhina, CEO." The claim on behalf of the corporation was filed on its behalf by an individual, apparently who is not licensed to practice law. It has long been recognized that a corporation is an artificial entity capable of acting only through its agents (New York & New Haven R.R. Co. v Schuyler, 34 NY 30, 50 [1865]). With certain exceptions that are not applicable herein, only a licensed attorney may appear on behalf of a corporation (see CPLR 321 [a]). Therefore, since the corporate claimant in the instant proceeding is not represented by an attorney, the claim filed on its behalf is a nullity and must therefore be dismissed as to the corporation (see Moran v Hurst, 32 AD3d 909 [2d Dept 2006]).
It appears, however, from the limited information submitted with the motion and the filed claim, that the appropriate claimant in this proceeding is James Mhina, individually. Therefore, the Court has amended the caption of this claim to reflect Mr. Mhina as the individual claimant in this proceeding.
Furthermore, with respect to the named defendants in his claim, it is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to actions against the State of New York and does not have jurisdiction over individually named officers, agents, or employees of the State. Therefore, although claimant listed Beth VanDoren, Assistant District Attorney of Onondaga County, as a named defendant, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over this individual, and any claim or cause of action asserted against Ms. VanDoren must be dismissed, leaving the State of New York as the only named defendant in this claim.
The Court of Claims also has jurisdiction over certain public authorities, none of which are pertinent herein. --------
Turning now to the merits of claimant's motion, a motion for summary judgment is a procedure by which a party seeks to demonstrate that there are no issues of fact to be tried, and that accelerated judgment without a trial should be granted. The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]), and such showing must be made "by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form" (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).
"Court of Claims Act Section 8-b, the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act, provides a mechanism for 'innocent persons who can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they were unjustly convicted and imprisoned . . . to recover damages against the state' " (Warney v State of New York, 16 NY3d 428, 434 [2011], quoting Court of Claims Act § 8-b [1]).
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b (5), in order to recover damages a claimant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (a) the claimant was convicted of a crime, sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and served all or any part of that sentence; (b) the claimant was pardoned on the ground of innocence or, alternatively, the conviction was reversed or vacated and the accusatory instrument was dismissed; (c) the claimant did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument (or that his acts did not constitute a felony or misdemeanor against the State); and (d) the claimant did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction.
With these requirements in mind, the Court will now address the merits of claimant's motion for summary judgment, keeping in mind that the standard of proof is one of "clear and convincing evidence."
Claimant has submitted absolutely no documentary evidence with his motion papers, aside from a copy of his motion seeking discovery and dismissal of the indictment in the related criminal proceeding, sworn to on December 6, 2013. Claimant has not submitted any documentary evidence, such as the accusatory instrument by which he was charged, documentary evidence to establish that he was incarcerated on any sentence imposed, or documentary evidence establishing that the indictment was ultimately dismissed following reversal, or the reason why it was dismissed.
The Court has reviewed the filed claim, and notes that claimant has attached to that claim a copy of the Memorandum and Order from the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dated October 4, 2013, in which his judgment of conviction from the Onondaga County Court, rendered October 9, 2009, was reversed. This is the only documentary evidence submitted by claimant which lists the crimes for which he was convicted, and the fact that a new trial was ordered by the Appellate Division. There has been no proof submitted as to whether that new trial was actually held, and if so, the results from that trial.
The Court has reviewed this Memorandum and Order from the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and notes that the reason given for the reversal was based upon the "Molineux" ruling by County Court, which the Appellate Court found constituted reversible error (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293-294 [1901]).
Based on the above, it is clear that claimant has failed to submit the necessary documentary evidence, in admissible form, to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
Furthermore, aside from his self-serving statements, claimant has presented absolutely no proof to establish that he did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument, or that he did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction.
In sum, claimant has fallen well short of establishing a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, and his motion must be denied on this basis.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that motion No. M-86638 is DENIED.
December 1, 2015
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims