New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PRESTON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-001-028, Claim No. 101878, Motion No. M-61394


Synopsis


Defendant's motion for an order dismissing the claim is granted and Claim No. 101878 is dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2000-001-028
Claimant(s):
OSCAR PRESTON, JR.
Claimant short name:
PRESTON
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101878
Motion number(s):
M-61394
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
susan phillips read
Claimant's attorney:
Oscar Preston, Jr., Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 26, 2000
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered on defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 for an order dismissing the claim: Notice of Motion, dated March 1 and filed March 3, 2000; Supporting Affirmation of Susan J. Pogoda, Esq., AAG, dated March 1 and filed March 3, 2000; and the claim, sworn to January 13 and filed January 31, 2000.

This pro se claim for "mental anguish, mental cruelty, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, [and] emotional duress" is alleged to have arisen from 1) the arrest, prosecution and trial of claimant Oscar Preston, Jr. ("claimant") on Bronx Criminal Court Docket No. 98X001016, said to have occurred between January 5, 1998 and July 1, 1999; 2) the arrest, prosecution and trial of claimant on Bronx Criminal Court Docket No. 99X039638, said to have occurred between July 5, 1999 and November 15, 1999; and 3) a parole violation based on Warrant No. 281885, said to have occurred between July 6, 1999 and November 26, 1999. The claim was filed on January 31, 2000. Claimant states that he was not guilty of the crimes for which he was arrested and consequently there was no basis for either the prosecutions or revocation of parole.

The claim contains no allegations of wrongdoing on the part of defendant State of New York ("defendant" or "the State") or its officers or employees in connection with his arrest, prosecution or trial of either criminal action. The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims against the City or County officials who brought and prosecuted the criminal charges. With respect to the warrant issued by the New York State Division of Parole, claimant's sole challenge to that agency's action is that it was based on the allegedly erroneous criminal prosecutions. Judicial review of the determinations of the State Parole Board may be achieved through an article 78 proceeding or a writ of habeas corpus, either of which must be commenced in Supreme Court, not in the Court of Claims (Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511; Matter of Soto v New York State Bd. of Parole, 107 AD2d 693; Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419).

Inasmuch as the Court of Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction over any portion of this claim, the Court grants defendant's motion; Claim No. 101878 is dismissed.


June 26, 2000
Albany, New York

HON. SUSAN PHILLIPS READ
Judge of the Court of Claims