New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GADSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-009-012, Claim No. 95779


Synopsis


Claimant, proceeding pro se, instituted this claim alleging negligence against the State upon the grounds that his assigned attorney neglected the appeal of a criminal matter. The Court dismissed this claim upon finding that claimant did not establish that his attorney was either an employee or an agent of the State.

Case Information

UID:
2000-009-012
Claimant(s):
GREGORY GADSON
Claimant short name:
GADSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
95779
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Nicholas V. Midey, Jr.
Claimant's attorney:
GREGORY GADSON, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Carla T. Rutigliano, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney General of Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 2, 2000
City:
Watertown
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision
Claimant instituted this action seeking damages for alleged negligence on the part of the State. Specifically, claimant alleges that his attorney, Peter C. Roth, neglected the appeal of a criminal matter, and that Mr. Roth was eventually disbarred from the practice of law on November 22, 1996, by the Appellate Division, Second Department.

A trial on this claim was held at Watertown Correctional Facility, on October 30, 2000, at which time claimant was the sole witness. He testified that this attorney had been assigned to represent him on his appeal by the Appellate Division, Second Department, and that he had filed a complaint against the attorney since he did not perfect said appeal.

At the close of claimant's testimony, defendant moved to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action against the State, and decision was reserved.

The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over claims against the State, and its employees, departments, and agencies. With respect to State employees, the State is liable for tortious acts committed within the scope of employment.

In this claim, however, claimant did not establish that his attorney was either an employee or agent of the State, nor did he set forth any other basis whatsoever on which this Court could impose liability against the State on the facts of this claim. Although claimant may possibly have a private cause of action against his attorney, this potential action does not, in and of itself, automatically create a claim against the State, without some indication that this attorney was acting as an employee or agent of the State.

Accordingly, the State's motion for dismissal of this claim for failure to state a cause of action, made at the close of claimant's proof, upon which decision was reserved, is now granted and Claim No. 95779 is hereby DISMISSED.

THE CHIEF CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.


November 2, 2000
Watertown , New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims