New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SHERMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE POLICE AND TROOPER MAUREEN CAGGIANO, #2003-010-014, Claim No. 103393, Motion No. M-66094


Synopsis


Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (a)(8).

Case Information

UID:
2003-010-014
Claimant(s):
ROBERT S. SHERMAN, ROBERT SHERMAN AND ROSEMARY SHERMAN
Claimant short name:
SHERMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE POLICE AND TROOPER MAUREEN CAGGIANO
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103393
Motion number(s):
M-66094
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
KENNETH G. ESEHAK, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Vincent Cascio, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 13, 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits.........................1

Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition........................................................................2

Attorney's Reply Affirmation...................................................................................3

Defendants' motion to dismiss that part of the claim as asserted against the New York State Police and Trooper Maureen Caggiano is hereby GRANTED on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims against those parties (Court of Claims Act §§8,9).

With regard to that part of the claim as asserted against the State of New York, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear any part of the claim because it was not timely asserted[1] (Court of Claims Act §§10, 11). Specifically, a "Notice of Intention to Make Claim" was served on February 12, 1999 alleging that on July 16, 1998 claimant, Robert Sherman Jr., was falsely arrested (Defendants' Ex. A). It is undisputed that claimant was given an appearance ticket and released from police custody that same day. On November 16, 1998, the criminal charges against him were dismissed. Claimant alleges false arrest, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, retaining, training and supervision of the New York State Police Officers which resulted in, inter alia, damage to the reputations of claimant and his parents and psychological injuries. All of the claims asserted arise out of the July 16, 1998 arrest. The claim further alleges that "[d]efendant further caused plaintiff's name and town of residence to be published in newspapers throughout the County of Westchester, detailing the alleged criminal activity and arrest of the plaintiff" (Defendants' Ex. B).[2] A claim was served upon the Attorney General's office on November 13, 2000 (Defendants' Ex. B). Defendants' answer raised, with sufficient specificity, the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction due to failure to timely serve a Notice of Intention within 90 days of accrual of the claim (Defendant's Ex. C, ¶ 25).

A cause of action for false arrest accrues upon a claimant's release from police custody (see Salman v Econo Lodge, ___ AD2d ___, 755 NYS2d 678; Kramer v Herrera, 176 AD2d 1241; Bomboy v State of New York, 26 AD2d 974). Therefore, the claim accrued on July 16, 1998 and it is undisputed that claimant failed to either serve a Notice of Intention or serve and file a claim within 90 days. The requirements of Court of Claims Act §§10 and 11 are jurisdictional in nature and require strict compliance (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721). Thus, the claim warrants dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (a)(8) (Gatz v State of New York, 283 AD2d 607; Hodge v State of New York, 213 AD2d 766; Schaeffer v State of New York, 145 Misc 2d 135).

Accordingly, Claim No. 103393 is DISMISSED in its entirety


May 13, 2003
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] Moreover, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged federal constitutional wrongs (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172).
[2] The Court finds that such language, even given a most liberal reading, fails to state a claim for libel.