From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 26, 2019
173 A.D.3d 1238 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017–05103 Claim No. 128510

06-26-2019

Milton THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.

Milton Thomas, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Andrew W. Amend and Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for respondent.


Milton Thomas, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Andrew W. Amend and Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER In a claim to recover damages for emotional and psychological injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (David Weinstein, J.), dated February 9, 2017. The order granted the defendant's unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The claimant, a wheelchair-bound patient at Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in Brooklyn, alleges that, on May 31, 2016, he was left unattended in an elevator with a dangerous and violent patient. More than 90 days later, on September 12, 2016, the claimant filed a claim with the clerk of the Court of Claims seeking to recover damages from the State of New York for emotional and psychological injuries he alleges he sustained as a result of the incident. The Attorney General was served with the claim on September 15, 2016. The State thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the claimant failed to file and serve the claim within 90 days of accrual of the claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 10(3) and 11(a)(i), respectively. The claimant did not oppose the State's motion. By order dated February 9, 2017, the Court of Claims granted the State's motion and directed dismissal of the claim. The claimant appeals.

Since no appeal lies from an order entered on default of the appealing party, the appeal must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511 ; Hurly v. State of New York , 200 A.D.2d 715, 715, 608 N.Y.S.2d 871 ).

MASTRO, J.P., MALTESE, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thomas v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 26, 2019
173 A.D.3d 1238 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Thomas v. State

Case Details

Full title:Milton Thomas, appellant, v. State of New York, respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jun 26, 2019

Citations

173 A.D.3d 1238 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
100 N.Y.S.3d 905
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5176

Citing Cases

Zelaya v. Cervas

The appeal from the order of commitment must be dismissed, as it was entered upon the father's default. No…