Opinion
# 2016-041-013 Claim No. 125635 Motion No. M-87931
02-29-2016
ALBISO MUNIZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ROBERT DEMBIA, ESQ. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss claim for failing to adequately state the nature of the claim, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), is denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-041-013 |
| Claimant(s): | ALBISO MUNIZ |
| Claimant short name: | MUNIZ |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125635 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87931 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | ROBERT DEMBIA, ESQ. |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 29, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim. Claimant opposes the defendant's motion.
Defendant argues that the claim fails to provide sufficient particularity "to give the court and parties notice of the transactions [and] occurrences . . . intended to be proven and the material elements of each cause of action," as required by CPLR 3013, and fails to set forth the nature of the claim as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), thus depriving the Court of jurisdiction.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) provides that:
"The claim shall 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."
A claim against the State is permissible only as a result of the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and the statutory requirements conditioning suit must therefore be strictly construed (Kolnacki v State of New York 8 NY3d 277, 280 [2007]). The Kolnacki court noted that the requirements of section 11 (b) are "substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereign immunity" (quoting Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]) and that the failure to satisfy any of the conditions is a jurisdictional defect (Kolnacki, 8 NY3d at 280-281). The Kolnacki decision stresses that "nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary" (Kolnacki, 8 NY3d at 281).
The standard of review in assessing whether a claim complies with section 11 (b) as to adequately stating the nature of the claim is well-settled:
"What is required is not absolute exactness, but simply a statement made with sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances. The statement must be specific enough so as not to mislead, deceive or prejudice the rights of the State. In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required . . . . Conclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet its requirements" (Heisler v State of State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 768 [4th Dept 1980]; see Cendales v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1165, 1167 [3d Dept 2003]; Sega v State of New York, 246 AD2d 753, 755 [3d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 805 [1998]).
The claim allegedly "arose from on or about December 22, 2014, when claimant was finally released despite a max date of July 2, 2014 . . . at the offices of the defendant including offices of the Executive Department Division of Parole, the Department of Correctional and Community Supervision [and various specifically named correctional facilities]."
Further, the claim goes on to delineate numerous specific acts, omissions or violations for which defendant is allegedly culpable, including the following:
"[W]rongfully computed time; wrongfully confined the claimant, wrongfully categorized the institutions of claimant's confinement, wrongfully designated them as RTF, or Residential Treatment Facilities, wrongfully placed claimant in improper facilities, with attendant loss of liberty, wrongful confinement, wrongfully imprisonment, negligently delayed release, wrongful charging, prosecuting the claimant, retaliatory false accusations of violations, wrongfully failed to respond to claimant's communictions [sic] advising defendant of the wrongful detention and wrongful actions."
Claimant additionally alleges the following:
"The respondent/defendant wrongfully assigned and housed the claimant, wrongfully categorized the institutions of confinement, knowingly, wrongfully located the claimant, imprisoned and wrongfully charged claimant, deprived him of his civil rights, including the rights to be free from illegal confinement and searches and seizures, violated constitutional rights, mandating redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The State and its employees violated court orders, knew or should have known that the officials in question had a history of similar wrongful actions and that the claimant was not legally subject to the restrictions and transfers imposed."
The claimant names various causes of actions allegedly arising from the alleged facts stated above but acknowledges, in his attorney's answering affirmation, that the claim, while naming multiple theories of recovery, essentially states causes of action for "false imprisonment and negligence."
Finally, the claim sets forth various items of damages allegedly flowing from defendant's asserted wrongful acts and omissions.
Significantly, claimant points out that the essential allegations of the claim were the subject of a successful habeas corpus proceeding brought by claimant against defendant, which was defended by the Attorney General, and which resulted in a Decision, Order and Judgment of the Franklin County Supreme Court in December, 2014.
After careful review, the Court finds that the allegations of the claim contain sufficient definiteness to enable the defendant to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances and, additionally, are specific enough not to mislead or deceive the defendant or prejudice the defendant's rights.
The claim adequately complies with the substantive pleading requirements of section 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act and CPLR 3013.
The defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is denied.
February 29, 2016
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Defendant's Notice of Motion to Dismiss, filed January 13, 2016; 2. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, dated January 13, 2016, and attached exhibits; 3. Affirmation of Robert Dembia, dated January 28, 2016, and attached exhibits.