Opinion
# 2016-038-513 Claim No. 126729 Motion No. M-87649
03-15-2016
LYUBOV YEFIMOVAv. NYS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
LYUBOV YEFIMOVA, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss in lieu of answer for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) granted. Incomprehensible allegations about car insurance, along with lack of a complete accrual date, do not allow the State to investigate the basis for its alleged liability.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-038-513 |
| Claimant(s): | LYUBOV YEFIMOVA |
| Claimant short name: | YEFIMOVA |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | NYS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126729 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87649 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | LYUBOV YEFIMOVA, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 15, 2016 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant filed this claim in which the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles is the named defendant, and it makes numerous references to car insurance. Defendant moves to dismiss in lieu of answer on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the claim does not comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Claimant has not submitted opposition to the motion to dismiss.
The Court of Claims Act requires, among other things, that "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, [and] the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained" (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]). To satisfy the "nature of the claim" requirement, the claim must state facts that are sufficiently definite " '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 201, 207 [2003], quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 [4th Dept 1980]). "The Court of Claims Act does not require [defendant] to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege" (id., at 208). The failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is a fatal defect in subject matter jurisdiction that requires dismissal of the claim (see Lepkowski, at 209; Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007]).
In its statement of facts, and to the extent that it is legible, the claim asserts in full:
"NYS departmen of motor vehicles demand insurance for care, and have set the Look sooner than 3 months Due to which the company insuries I can not give the insurance on the car. At first I repaired his care at his own expense, and then I left for 2 monts in Russia. I was trying to insure car, but not giv me insure bader look. And look put for dpivalaisens. Needet out. You require insurins, and put look!!! Wat is it???"
(Claim No. 126729, ¶ 2 [errors unedited]). The claim does not allege a place where the claim accrued, and as for the time when the claim arose, the claim states only "2 day of September" (id., ¶ 4).
Defendant argues that the claim fails to state a cognizable cause of action because it is "written in a disjointed and confusing fashion, replete with vague, confusing and conclusory allegations, which fails to satisfy even the minimal requirements of particularity required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b)" (Cagino Affirmation, ¶ 5). Defendant further asserts that the claim is difficult to decipher, that those parts that can be deciphered are confusing, incomplete and unintelligible, and that the reader cannot gain a clear understanding of the alleged wrongs which leaves defendant without the ability to investigate the claim (id., at ¶¶ 6-8). The Court agrees with these contentions, and thus, the claim will be dismissed.
Even given the liberal review accorded to submissions by a pro se litigant (see Ali v State of New York, UID No. 2006-028-516 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Feb. 7, 2006]), the pleading is manifestly non-compliant with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). It is "a rambling jumble of allegations from which it is impossible to discern the conduct for which the claimant seeks to hold the State of New York liable" Praileau v State of New York, UID No. 2011-015-255 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Aug. 18, 2011]; see also Rivera v State of New York, 52 AD3d 1075, 1076 [3d Dept 2008]; Flemming v State of New York, UID No. 2011-018-227 [Ct Cl, Fitzpatrick, J., Aug. 17, 2011]; Jones v State of New York, UID No. 2006-037-020 [Ct Cl, Moriarty, J., Aug 1, 2006]). The nearly incomprehensible statements in the pleading render it jurisdictionally defective.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that defendant's motion M-87649 is GRANTED, and claim number 126729 is DISMISSED.
March 15, 2016
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers considered: (1) Claim number 126729, filed September 14, 2015; (2) Notice of Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, dated November 6, 2015; (3) Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, AAG, in Support of Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, dated November 6, 2015, with Exhibit A; (4) Affidavit of Service of Motion of Serena Campon, sworn to November 6, 2015.