Opinion
# 2015-018-608 Claim No. 124822 Motion No. M-85772
02-02-2015
JOSHUA MORRIS and JESSICA MORRIS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
JOSHUA MORRIS and JESSICA MORRIS Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christopher Wiles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Motion to dismiss granted for failure to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-018-608 |
| Claimant(s): | JOSHUA MORRIS and JESSICA MORRIS |
| Claimant short name: | MORRIS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124822 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85772 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | JOSHUA MORRIS and JESSICA MORRIS Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christopher Wiles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 2, 2015 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant brings a pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act section 11 (b) (CPLR 3211 [a] [2]), and election of remedies, collateral estoppel and res judicata (CPLR 3211 [a] [5]), and lack of specificity pursuant to CPLR 3013 and 3014. Claimants have opposed the motion.
Claimants filed a claim with the Clerk of the Court on August 11, 2014, which was received by the Attorney General's Office on August 8, 2014. In the claim, Claimants seek $25,300 in damages for the reduction in the market value of their property due to the March 30, 2012, Order of the Honorable Thomas G. Leone, Cayuga County Supreme Court, declaring that if Robinson Road in the Towns of Locke and Lansing, County of Cayuga was a public highway, it was abandoned as a public roadway due to non-use pursuant to New York State Highway Law section 205. A copy of Judge Leone's Order is attached to the claim as Exhibit 2. Judge Leone's determination that Robinson Road was abandoned as a public roadway was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department on November 15, 2013. Leave to Appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals was denied on May 6, 2014. Claimants assert that the abandonment of Robinson Road as a public roadway extinguished their right-of-way and eliminated their means of access to their property, clouding title to their property and greatly diminishing its value.
See Morris v Town of Locke, 111 AD3d 1429 [4th Dept 2013].
See Morris v Town of Locke, 23 NY3d 902 [2014].
Defendant, by its motion, seeks dismissal of the claim because the claim alleges no State action affecting their property rights, rather that the Towns of Lansing and Locke abandoned the roadway. As a result, Defendant argues the claim fails to state a cause of action and fails to comply with Court of Claims Act section 11 (b), depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant also asserts the claim does not comply with CPLR 3013 and 3014. Alternatively, Defendant argues that Claimants elected their remedies when they commenced the declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court which addressed and resolved by final Order the same issues, and that the Order and Decision on Appeal preclude this claim based upon res judicata or collateral estoppel.
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the initial inquiry is whether the claim on its face states a cause of action (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268 [1977]). Where evidentiary material is considered, the determination that must be made is whether the claimant has a cause of action (Id at 275; Liberty Affordable Hous., Inc. v Maple Ct. Apartments, 125 AD3d 85, 2015 NY Slip Op 00003 [4th Dept 2015]). In other words, can Claimants "succeed upon any reasonable view of the facts stated." (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307, 318 [1995]). The pleading must be viewed liberally and claimant must be given the benefit of every favorable inference (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).
The Court of Claims is a Court of limited jurisdiction, with the statutory authority to hear only those claims authorized by Court of Claims Act section 9. Since its waiver of sovereign immunity, the State may be held liable for the actions of its officers or employees (Court of Claims Act §§ 8 and 10). To state a cause of action against the State, Claimants must allege some State action or inaction that can support an award for money damages (see generally Erie Blvd. Hydropower, LP v State of New York, 90 AD3d 1292 [3d Dept 2011][jurisdiction limited to claims against the State where the State is the real party in interest]; Fuller v State of New York, 11 AD3d 365 [1st Dept 2004] [district attorney not an officer or employee of State for whom State could be liable]; J. Ellrott Excavating Contrs. v State of New York, 247 AD2d 705 [3d Dept 1998] [County Clerk not acting as State actor, for whom State could be liable]; Frasier v State of New York, 11 Misc 3d 497 [Ct Cl 2005] [no authority to hear claims for alleged ministerial negligence of State Division of Veterans' Affairs in providing services to a veteran]).
Here, the only possible State involvement alleged in the claim is the Order rendered by the Honorable Thomas G. Leon, County of Cayuga, Supreme Court. Although a judge of the New York State Supreme Court is, by statute, a State officer or employee, it is a firmly established principle of law that a judge exercising his or her vested authority may not be held liable in a civil action for damages (Judiciary Law § 39 [6]; Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 [1978]; Mosher-Simons v County of Allegheny, 99 NY2d 214 [2002]; Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511 [1986]). This absolute immunity applies "however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to [be]." (Cleavinger v Saxner, 474 US 193, 199 [1985], quoting Bradley v Fischer, 13 Wall., 80 US 335, 347 [1871]). 335, 347 [1872]). "Judges have long been immune even from tort liability suits alleging that their decisions were tainted by improper motives." (Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d at 518). This immunity is viewed as imperative to the judicial function, so that judges are free to make decisions without fear of personal liability (Id.). There is an established means for review of alleged judicial mistakes or wrongs which can be corrected through appellate review, without the need to constrain the judicial process with the potential for "vexatious litigation." (Mosher-Simons v Co. of Allegheny, 99 NY2d at 219).
The only exceptions to this principle of immunity are where a judge acts in a nonjudicial capacity or takes judicial action in the absence of any jurisdiction (Stump v Sparkman, 435 US at 356-357; Best v State of New York, 116 AD3d 1198 [3d Dept 2014]). Even actions taken in excess of jurisdiction are covered by the cloak of immunity (see Harley v State of New York, 186 AD2d 324 [3d Dept 1992]; Lombardoni v Boccaccio, 121 AD2d 828 [3d Dept 1986]).
Here, clearly, Judge Leone was engaged in a judicial function when he issued the subject order based upon the motion and cross motion that were before him. Claimants have made no allegations that Judge Leone was without jurisdiction when he rendered this order, and the facts do not support even the suggestion that Judge Leone acted without jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction ( NY Const art VI, § 7). No other viable State action can be surmised from the claim. Under these circumstances, Claimants have failed to state a cause of action.
To the extent the claim can be read to have this Court review the determinations made by Judge Leone, or the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Decisions of those Courts (see Martocci v County of Ulster, UID No. 2001-028-557 [Ct Cl, Sise, J., Sept. 6, 2001] [Court of Claims does not review Supreme Court, Appellate Division or Court of Appeals decisions]; Vasile v State of New York, UID No. 2000-019-535 [Ct Cl, Lebous, J., Sept. 22, 2000] [Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to review judicial rulings made in Supreme Court]).
In any event, the abandonment of the road was a consequence of the more than six years of non-use of the roadway after a bridge over Hemlock Creek was washed out in 1935, not the result of Judge Leon's declaration (Morris v Town of Locke, 111 AD3d 1429). Under these circumstances, Defendant's motion must be granted, because Claimants do not have a cause of action against the State.
Defendant's motion is GRANTED and the claim is DISMISSED.
February 2, 2015
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court has considered the following in deciding this motion:
1) Notice of Motion.
2) Affirmation of Christopher Wiles, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, in support with exhibit attached thereto.
3) Unsworn Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Joshua Morris and Jessica Morris, with exhibit attached thereto.