New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WALSH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-010-053, Claim No. 99778, Motion Nos. M-63471, CM-63637


Synopsis


Defendant's cross-motion to dismiss is granted and claimant's motion to compel discovery is moot.

Case Information

UID:
2001-010-053
Claimant(s):
HOWARD WALSH
Claimant short name:
WALSH
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99778
Motion number(s):
M-63471
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-63637
Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
HOWARD WALSHPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
Augsut 8, 2001
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion to compel discovery and defendant's cross-motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibit.............................1

Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits.............2

Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

Claim No. 99778 alleges that on November 17, 1998, claimant's parole officer, Trudy Burns, gave false and misleading testimony before an Administrative Law Judge at a Final Parole Revocation Hearing. Claimant's Article 78 proceeding, based upon the same allegations, was denied by Decision and Order of the Supreme Court (Defendant's Ex. 3).

This Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Parole Revocation Hearing or the denial of claimant's Article 78 proceeding (Court of Claims Act § 9; see, Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419, affd 135 AD2d 1155 [Court of Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction to award damages for alleged improper parole revocation]; see also, Semkus v State of New York, 272 AD2d 74 [error in decision to revoke parole is quasi-judicial and therefore State has absolute immunity from tort liability]).

Accordingly, defendant's cross-motion to dismiss is GRANTED and claimant's motion to compel is rendered moot and is therefore DENIED.


Augsut 8, 2001
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims