Opinion
# 2011-015-280 Claim No. 119830 Motion No. M-80288
12-07-2011
PRAILEAU v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Motion to dismiss claim alleging various improprieties during course of prior criminal and civil proceedings was granted for failure to state a cause of action. Case information
UID: 2011-015-280 Claimant(s): WILLIAM R. PRAILEAU Claimant short name: PRAILEAU Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 119830 Motion number(s): M-80288 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS William R. Praileau, Pro Se Claimant's attorney: No Appearance Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Paul F. Cagino, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: December 7, 2011 City: Saratoga Springs Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the instant claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Claimant, a pro se inmate, alleges, in relevant part, that "The STATE OF NEW YORK, has used each of the following STATE agencies to the detriment of the CLAIMANT: . . . I. COURT OF APPEALS . . . II. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT . . . III. APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPT. . . . IV. APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. . . V. COURT OF CLAIMS" (see Claim). For each court or agency mentioned the claimant has asserted that its determinations were fraudulent or part of a scheme to deny claimant his constitutional or statutory rights. The claim alleges a litany of improprieties including the issuance of fraudulent documents or other perceived misconduct by court personnel. Claimant alleges that the claim accrued on or about February 13, 2011 when "a determination from the Court of Appeals was received by the CLAIMANT, bearing the embossed Seal of the Court of Appeals, but was fraudulent as the signature thereupon was NOT an original transcription. This action necessarily has ensued."
On a motion to dismiss a claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) 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]; see also Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). Thus, the determination is made by reference to whether "the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one" (Leon, supra at 88). Giving claimant the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the facts alleged in the claim fail to state a cause of action. To the extent claimant is obviously dissatisfied with various determinations made in both criminal and civil proceedings, his recourse is an appeal, motion or review pursuant to CPLR article 78, not an action for monetary damages in the Court of Claims (see Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419 [Ct Cl 1987], affd 135 AD2d 1155 [1987]). Moreover, to the extent claimant complains about conduct of the judiciary and its staff, the State is immune from liability (Donald v State of New York, 17 NY3d 389 [2011]; Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214 [2002]; Gookins v State of New York, 33 Misc 3d 1215 [A] [2011]).
Accordingly, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed, without opposition.
December 7, 2011
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated August 9, 2011;
2. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino dated August 9, 2011;
3. Claim No. 119830 filed May 9, 2011.