New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROSE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-015-170, Claim No. 104020, Motion No. M-63445


Pro se inmate's claim seeking to recover money damages for exposure to TB dismissed due to claim's lack of specificity regarding the date of accrual, allegations of the State's negligent conduct or inaction, and failure to itemize damages and state total sum claimed.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Darrell Rose, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: G. Lawrence Dillon, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 2, 2001
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The defendant's pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (8) for lack of jurisdiction is granted. The claim seeks to recover unspecified damages for personal injuries purportedly arising from the claimant's exposure to tuberculosis while incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility at Marcy, New York as well as alleged improper medical treatment.

The defendant moves to dismiss the claim as jurisdictionally defective in that it fails to specify the date or dates upon which the claim accrued, the manner in which the State was negligent and neglects to itemize damages and set forth the total sum claimed as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).

The claim in pertinent part alleges:
2. This claim arises from the act or omissions of the defendant. Details of the said acts or omissions are as follow (be specific): upon I was tested for a T B test at Mid-State Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2500 Marcy, New York 13403 which happen to resort to a positive lab work.

I was tolded to take a medication call INH which can, and has been a danger to my health as well as good for the illness.

I rase this claim based upon my above statement cause of pain, discomfort and threat to claimant good health! By negligence carelessness of the operation by Department of Correctional because of poorly prevalent to detect an contain patient or patient's with tuberculosis disease.

According to New York State department of correctional services health services policy task in tuberculosis control.

Which cause claimant to contract tuberculosis illness while in custody of department of correctional.

Claimant health problem never arose in his pass with such disease and did not enter into the care and custody of the department of correctional services with tuberculosis.

3. The place where the act(s) took place is [be specific]: Mid-State Correctional PO Box 2500 Marcy, New York 13403
4. This claim accrued on the day of ___________, ____________

Section 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act provides in relevant part 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 and the total sum claimed . . ." While the Courts have imbued the requirement that the nature of the claim be stated with a certain flexibility (Ferrugia v State of New York, 237 AD2d 858), "[c]onclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to [state] the manner in which claimant was injured and how the State was negligent" have been held inadequate for purposes of the statute (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 768).

Here, in addition to claimant's failure to state the time when the claim arose (see, Harper v State of New York, 34 AD2d 865), it is virtually impossible to determine what specific acts or omissions on the part of the defendant's employees or agents might form the basis of his claim. The failure of the claim to specify the alleged negligence of the State is a fatal defect requiring dismissal (Chung v State of New York, 122 Misc 2d 676, 677; Patterson v State of New York, 54 AD2d 147, affirmed 45 NY2d 885; Bonaparte v State of New York, 175 AD2d 683; Grande v State of New York, 160 Misc 2d 383). Accordingly, the instant claim is dismissed.

August 2, 2001
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:

1. Notice of motion dated May 1, 2001;

2. Affirmation of G. Lawrence Dillon dated May 1, 2001, with exhibits;