Opinion
# 2013-048-102 Motion No. M-82448
06-24-2013
PARIS MILLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
The Court denied Claimant's motion seeking late Claim relief, finding that the causes of action alleging intentional torts were untimely, and based on Claimant's failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11(b), as incorporated in Section 10 (6).
Case information
UID: 2013-048-102 Claimant(s): PARIS MILLER Claimant short name: MILLER Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): None Motion number(s): M-82448 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: GLEN T. BRUENING Claimant's attorney: PARIS MILLER, Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Esq. Defendant's attorney: Senior Attorney Anthony Rotondi, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: June 24, 2013 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
On November 23, 2012, Claimant Paris Miller filed a motion for permission to file a late Claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). He seeks $5,000,000.00 in damages based on certain incidents alleged to have occurred at the Central New York Psychiatric Center (Center) on September 8, 2011. Claimant asserted causes of action for "personal injury, medical malpractice, mental anguish, emotional distress, pain & suffering, and violating my NYS constitutional rights, excessive use of force" (Notice of Motion, filed November 23, 2012). Claimant also requested the assignment of counsel.
In support of his November 2012 motion, Claimant alleged, among other things, that, while housed at the Center on September 8, 2011, he was overly medicated, which caused him to fall and suffer certain injuries. While he had intended to timely serve a Notice of Intention to File a Claim (Notice of Intention), Claimant asserted that he was prohibited from doing so based on the lack of access to both a notary public and a law library, based on his lack of funds and based on the alleged acts of facility employees in thwarting his attempt to deposit a money order into his account. Claimant also asserted that he was further prevented from timely filing and serving a Notice of Intention because he was placed in isolation until October 16, 2011 based on the false accusations of facility staff that he made sexual advances on another patient.
On January 30, 2013, Claimant re-filed his Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit, but included additional documents and allegations and increased his claim for relief to $35,000,000.00 (see Notice of Motion, dated January 23, 2013). Included with his January 2013 filing is, among other documents, a document entitled "Notice of Motion to 1) Amend My Claim & Affirmation in Support & 2) Request for Permission to File a Late Claim & 3) To be Appointed Pro Bono Counsel [-] All Combined Motion." Claimant also attaches a document captioned "A) Notice of Motion to be Given Permission to File Late Claim & B) Order to Produce," in which Claimant seeks damages for acts occurring at the Center "from 9/7/11 to 2/15/12." In a supporting Affidavit, Claimant lists the following causes of action:
By correspondence received December 10, 2012, Claimant requested, among other things, that his motion be sent back and that be granted "an extension for this motions [sic] so that he can refile this motion on all parties involved."
assault, excessive use of force, personal injury, medical malpractice, libel, slander, defamation of character, property damage, failure to protect my health & safety, deprival of my due process libert [sic], and property, deprival of my access to the courts, medical deliberate indifference, violated my NYS constitutional rights, mental anguish, emotional distress, and pain and suffering.
("A) Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion to be Given Permission to File Late Claim & B) Order to Produce," sworn to on January 23, 2013). Claimant also attaches a proposed Claim to his January 2013 filing, which consists of 55 single-spaced handwritten pages, with no numbered paragraphs. The precise nature of the claims alleged is not clear, and thus, it is hard to determine precisely what causes of action Claimant asserts and when such matters arose. The proposed Claim reads like a stream of consciousness, with the allegations jumping back and forth, to and from various time periods, and merging in certain background information, the facts of which are not entirely clear to the Court. However, based on the Court's liberal reading of the proposed Claim, it appears that Claimant asserts causes of action based on certain acts and omissions occurring in 2010, while he was an was an inmate at Downstate Correctional Facility, in 2011, while he was an inmate at Clinton and Great Meadow Correctional Facilities, and in the latter part of 2011 and 2012, while he was a resident at the Center. Much of the proposed Claim centers around two alleged assaults - one occurring on July 4, 2011 at Great Meadow, when he claims to have been tightly handcuffed and shackled (see proposed Claim, page 3), and the other occurring on September 8, 2011 at the Center, when Claimant alleges medical malpractice and the excessive use of force when he was overly medicated and caused to fall and strike his head (see proposed Claim, pages 4-8, 10). However, the proposed Claim also asserts, in seemingly random sequence, various other acts of improper conduct occurring between 2010 and 2012, including that, on August 19, 2010, employees at Downstate committed libel, slander and defamation by falsifying certain conviction documents (see Proposed Claim, pages 45, 49-50); on February 8, 2011 and February 15, 2011, Claimant was subjected to the excessive use of force at Clinton (see proposed Claim, page 45); on March 10, 2011, Claimant was assaulted by another inmate at Clinton (see proposed Claim, page 54); on June 5, 2011, Claimant was denied dinner at Great Meadow (see proposed Claim, page 3); between May and June, 2011, Claimant's mail was wrongfully destroyed at Great Meadow (see proposed Claim, page 3); on August 30, 2011, Claimant was assaulted at Great Meadow (see proposed Claim, page 4) ; on September 7, 2011, a nurse committed medical malpractice by failing to inform him that he was to remain in a padded room (see id.); on September 8, 2011, the Center committed libel and slander when employees accused Claimant of causing the incident that occurred on that date (see proposed Claim, page 11); on September 24, 2011, the Center committed libel, slander and medical malpractice when staff reported in his medical file that he was complaining and based on the failure of a doctor to "simply tell [] [him] that he wanted [him] to sleep in this side rubber room" (proposed Claim, page 24); on September 25, 2011, Claimant was subjected to the excessive use of force at the Center (see proposed Claim, page 22); on September 28, 2011, Claimant was subjected to excessive force at the Center and Defendant committed malicious prosecution, defamation of character and medical malpractice when Claimant was moved to "disciplinary isolation" (proposed Claim, page 33); on September 29, 2011, Claimant was subjected to excessive force and the Center committed libel and slander by falsely accusing Claimant of making sexual advances toward another patient (see proposed Claim, page 29-30); on January 2 and 3 2012, employees of the Center wrongfully destroyed his mail (see proposed Claim, pages 36, 37); and, on December 12, 2012, the Center's Risk Management Unit disclosed certain confidential information to Clinton's Unit Chief in violation of HIPAA (see proposed Claim, pages 44, 46). Claimant also references various dates in December 2012 and January 2013 on the first page of the proposed Claim that are alleged to have occurred at Clinton, but does not set forth the particulars of those alleged acts.
The Court refers to the January 2013 proposed Claim as the proposed Claim submitted for purposes of Claimant's motion seeking late Claim relief.
Claimant also alleges that he was assaulted on various dates between June 12, 2011 and September 6, 2011 at Great Meadow (see proposed Claim, page 53).
Attached to the proposed Claim are various exhibits, including, among other documents, mental health records, correspondence, medical records from the July 4, 2011 and September 8,2011 incidents and investigatory materials related to the September 25, 2011 incident.
On February 4, 2013, Claimant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition), asserting, among other things, that he was being wrongfully detained based on certain convictions that are alleged to be as a result of certain "trumped up" charges (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, page 2, paragraph 4). In his Petition, Claimant makes allegations similar to those made in his January 2013 submission and also alleges that he was doused and sprayed with buckets of water and a water hose on various dates between June 2011 and September 2011 (seePetition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, page 2, paragraph 4).
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus references two motion numbers: Motion Nos. M-82448 and M-82449. The Court notes that Motion No. M-82449 involved, among other things, Claimant's application for late Claim relief alleging excessive force by correction officers on July 7, 2011. By Decision and Order, filed February 4, 2013, Claimant's motion was denied as untimely, having been brought outside the applicable statute of limitations (see Miller v State of New York, UID No. 2012-015-398 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Jan.18, 2013]).
In opposition to Claimant's motion, Defendant argues that the proposed Claim fails to meet the strict pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and that, in any event, the causes of action sounding in intentional torts are barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and the remaining causes of action are lacking in merit or involve challenges to the administrative acts and/or omissions of Defendant, which should be brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78. Defendant also argues that Claimant's application seeking the appointment of counsel should be denied based on the lack of evidence that the Oneida County Attorney's Office was served with the motion. Substantively, Defendant argues that the Claim in this matter is not sufficiently complex to justify the assignment of counsel. Defendant also argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Claimant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
By correspondence received December 10, 2012, Raymond F. Bara, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, advised that while the County does not object to poor person relief and the assignment of an attorney, the County does object to any compensation for such an attorney to be made at the County's expense (see Correspondence from Raymond F. Bara, Esq., received December 10, 2012).
Whether characterized as a Claim for an intentional tort or an unintentional tort, Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) mandates that a copy of the Claim be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the Attorney General within the applicable time period provided in Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act. Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) mandates that "[a] claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injuries caused by the negligence or unintentional tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim." Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b) mandates that "[a] claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injuries caused by the intentional tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee . . . shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within one year after the accrual of such claim." Failure to timely serve the Attorney General with the Notice of Intention, or to timely file and serve the Claim, divests the Court of subject matter jurisdiction (see Alston v State of New York, 97 NY2d 159, 164 [2001]; Maude V. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 82 AD3d 1468, 1469 [3d Dept 2011]). However, if a claimant fails to timely file or serve the Claim, or fails to timely serve the Notice of Intention, he or she may move the Court for permission to file and serve a late Claim, so long as the applicable statute of limitations set forth in Article 2 of the CPLR has not expired (see Court of Claims Act §10 [6]). The proposed Claim asserts causes of action for the intentional torts of assault, excessive use of force, libel, slander and defamation of character - all of which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations (see CPLR § 215 [3]). The proposed Claim also asserts causes of action for medical malpractice and negligence, including the negligent disclosure of privileged information, which are subject to two year and six months, and three-year statutes of limitations, respectively (see CPLR § 214-a; CPLR § 214 [4], [5]; see e.g. Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001, 1002 [3d Dept 1991]). Claimant's most recent allegation of an intentional tort accrued on September 29, 2011, when Claimant alleges that he was subjected to excessive force and falsely accused of making sexual advances towards another inmate. Thus, the statute of limitations for the most recent intentional tort expired on October 1, 2012, and the Court lacks the discretion to grant late Claim relief with respect to the causes of action alleging intentional torts. However, to the extent that the proposed Claim asserts causes of action for negligence based on Defendant's negligence in failing to protect Claimant from another inmate on March 10, 2011, medical malpractice occurring on September 7, September 8, September 24, and September 28, 2011, negligent property damage occurring at the Center on January 2 and 3, 2012, and negligent disclosure of confidential information occurring on December 12, 2012, Claimant's application for late claim relief is timely.
To the extent that the proposed Claim can be read to assert a bailment for the loss of certain mail between May 2011 and June 2011while Claimant was an inmate at Great Meadow, section 10 (9) of the Court of Claims Act requires an inmate to first exhaust administrative remedies and then serve and file a claim within 120 days from such date, and late Claim relief pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) is unavailable for such claims (see Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001 [4th Dept 2004]). To the extent that the Claim can be read to assert a claim based on the confiscation of Claimant's mail during that same time frame, Claimant's remedy, after first exhausting his administrative remedies, lies in Supreme Court in the form of an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his administrative grievance (see e.g. Matter of Raqiyb v Goord, 28 AD3d 892, 894 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Hili v Coombe, 236 AD2d 756, 756 [3d Dept 1997], appeal dismissed, lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997], cert denied, sub nom Hili v Goord, 522 US 884 [1997]). To the extent Claimant alleges a violation under the Federal Constitution (see proposed Claim, pages 18 and 33), it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims (see Carver v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1393, 1395 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]). To the extent that Claimant asserts State constitutional claims (see proposed Claim, page 40) based on the falsification of his mental health file, such a claim is barred where, as here, Claimant has an alternative legal remedy (see Deleon v State of New York, 64 AD3d 840, 840-841 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]). To the extent that the proposed Claim can be read to assert a causes of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, public policy prohibits such claims against the State (see Brown v State of New York, 125 AD2d 750, 752 [3d Dept 1986], appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 747 [1987]).
In addressing the substance of Claimant's motion with respect to the negligence and medical malpractice claims only, Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) requires that a motion for late claim relief be accompanied by "[t]he claim proposed to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in section eleven of this act." Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires, in relevant part, that "[t]he claim [] state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and, except in an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the total sum claimed." Section 11 (b) also requires that the same information be set forth in a Notice of Intention, excepting the items of damage or injuries. All of the requirements in section 11 (b) are "substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereign immunity" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]), and a Claimant's failure to comply with those statutory provisions renders the Claim jurisdictionally defective (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007]).
Assuming that a proposed Claim containing all of the information set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 is submitted with the motion, the Court of Claims is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny a motion that seeks permission to file a late claim (see Langner v State of New York, 65 AD3d 780, 783 [3d Dept 2009]) after consideration of, among others, six factors, including "whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]). However, "the presence or absence of any one factor should not be deemed controlling" (Matter of Martinez v State of New York, 62 AD3d 1225, 1226 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
Prior to consideration of the six factors listed in the Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will first determine whether the proposed Claim is sufficiently specific to comply with the pleading requirements of Section 11 (b), since those requirements implicate this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The "guiding principle" of Section 11 (b) is "to enable the State . . . to investigate the claim[s] promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 207 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Along these lines, CPLR 3014 provides, in pertinent part, that every pleading shall consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs. It further provides that each paragraph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation. The proposed Claim in this matter is 55 pages consisting of one single paragraph, with conclusory allegations made without any an semblance of an order. While pleadings are to be interpreted liberally (see CPLR 3026), Defendant is not required to ferret out or assemble the information set forth in the proposed Claim in order to prepare an answer (see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 208). Accordingly, the Court finds that the proposed Claim is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), as incorporated in Section 10 (6). Insofar as Claimant's failure to attach a proposed Claim containing all of the information required by Court of Claims Act § 11 warrants the denial of his motion, the Court does not reach the merits of the six statutory factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). Claimant's request for poor person status and the assignment of counsel is denied as moot (see Court of Claims Act § 11-a; 22 NYCRR 206.5-b; CPLR 1101 [a], [f]). To the extent that Claimant seeks habeas corpus relief, the Court of Claims is a Court of limited jurisdiction and cannot grant such relief (see Court of Claims Act §§ 8 and 9 and CPLR 7002 [b]).
Accordingly, Claimant's Motion No. M-82448 is denied.
June 24, 2013
Albany, New York
GLEN T. BRUENING
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court:
Notice of Motion, filed November 23, 2012;
Notice of Motion Requesting Permission to File a Late Claim and to be Appointed Counsel and Affidavit in Support, sworn to on to on November 19, 2012, with proposed Claim, verified on November 19, 2012;
Correspondence from Claimant, received December 10, 2012;
Correspondence from Raymond F. Bara, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, Oneida County Department of Law, received December 10, 2012;
Notice of Motion, filed January 30, 2013;
Notice of Motion Requesting Permission to File a Late Claim and to be Appointed Counsel and Affidavit in Support, sworn to on November 19, 2012, with document entitled "Cover Page," consisting of one page;
Notice of Motion, dated January 23, 2013;
"Notice of Motion to 1) Amend My Claim & Affirmation in Support & 2) Request for Permission to File a Late Claim & 3) to be Appointed Pro Bono Counsel [-] All Combined Motion," dated January 23, 2013, with Exhibits A-B;
"A) Notice of Motion to be Given Permission to File a Late Claim & B) Order to Produce," dated January 23, 2013;
"A) Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion to be Given Permission to File a Late Claim & B) Order to Produce," sworn to on January 23, 2013;
Motion to be appointed Pro Bono Counsel and to Proceed as a Poor Person, dated January 23, 2012 [sic];
"1) Affidavit in Support of Motion to be Appointed Pro Bono Counsel on Request for Permission to File a Late Claim 2) Affidavit in Support of Motion to Proceed as a Poor Person," sworn to on January 23, 2013;
Proposed Claim, consisting of 55 pages, and a verification, sworn to on January 23, 2013, with Exhibits C-F;
Affidavit in Support of Application Pursuant to CPLR 1101 (f) Poor Person Status for Inmate, sworn to on January 23, 2013;
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed February 4, 2013 [with attached Statement in Petition of Inability to Annex Copy of Mandate, Statement in Petition as to Previous Application, Writ of Habeas Corpus, "Reply, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," Verification, Notice of Time and Place of Hearing, Affidavit of Service and Notice of Motion, dated January 11, 2013, Correspondence, dated January 11, 2013];
Affirmation of Anthony Rotondi, Esq., dated February 7, 2013, with Exhibits A-C;
Affirmation of Thomas Trace, Esq., dated March 14, 2013.