New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HUMPHREY v. New York, #2000-019-500, Claim No. 101086, Motion No. M-60547


Synopsis


The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim since neither the New York City Police Department or the Queens County District Attorney's Office is a proper party in the Court of Claims.

Case Information

UID:
2000-019-500
Claimant(s):
PAUL HUMPHREY, JR.
Claimant short name:
HUMPHREY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101086
Motion number(s):
M-60547
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
PAUL HUMPHREY, JR., PRO SE
141-15 Foch BoulevardQueens, New York 11436
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Susan J. Pogoda, AAG, of Counsel
NYS Department of Law
120 BroadwayNew York, New York 10271
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 22, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


This is a motion to dismiss filed by the State of New York (hereinafter "the State") in lieu of an answer pursuant to CPLR § 3211. The Court has not received any papers in opposition to this motion by or on behalf of Claimant.[1]


The Court considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Claim, filed September 17, 1999.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-60547, dated October 14, 1999 and filed October 15, 1999.
  3. Affirmation of Susan J. Pogoda, AAG, in support of motion, dated October 14, 1999, with attached exhibits.


Claimant alleges he was wrongfully arrested and incarcerated by the New York City Police Department and the Queens County District Attorney's Office on July 11, 1999. (Notice of Claim, ¶ 2). The State moves for dismissal contending that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim since neither the New York City Police Department or the Queens County District Attorney's Office is a proper party in the Court of Claims.


The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is to determine whether the Claimant possesses a cause of action, not simply whether he has stated one. In addition, "[t]he pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction...We accept the facts as alleged in the complaint 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 [citations omitted]." (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Here, the Claim does not provide any details regarding the underlying incident, the arrest, and/or any subsequent proceedings. In any event, the Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction with power to hear claims against the State and certain public authorities. (CCA § 9). This Court does not have jurisdiction over the City of New York, the New York City Police Department or any individual employee thereof. (Whitmore v State of New York, 55 AD2d 745, 746, lv denied 42 NY2d 810). Nor does the Court have jurisdiction over the Queens County District Attorney's Office. (Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60).


Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that the State's motion to dismiss, Motion No. M-60547, is GRANTED and Claim No. 101086 is DISMISSED.




February 22, 2000
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]This motion was adjourned twice at Claimant's request.