New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

Mayam v. The State of New York, Family Court County of New York, Honorable Judge; Susan Larabee, #2003-016-093, Claim No. 107969, Motion No. M-67408


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-016-093
Claimant(s):
Priest: Manatazach Mayam, D.D., [A Sovereign] Sui Juris in Propria Persona, formally known as Rev. Albert Vincent Ford, D.D. and wife Shamayam Moraima Mayam, [A Sovereign] Sui Juris in Propria Persona, formally known as Moraima Ford
Claimant short name:
Mayam
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
The State of New York, Family Court County of New York, Honorable Judge; Susan Larabee
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107969
Motion number(s):
M-67408
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Priest: Manatazach Mayam, D.D., [A Sovereign] Sui Juris in Propria Persona, formally known as Rev. Albert Vincent Ford, D.D. and wife Shamayam Moraima Mayam, [A Sovereign] Sui Juris in Propria Persona, formally known as Moraima Ford
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Grace A. Brannigan, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 13, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

This is defendant's motion to dismiss claim no. 107969 on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Specifically, defendant alleges that: (1) the claim fails to comply with the particularity requirement of §11 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"); (2) the claim is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity; (3) the claim fails to comply with the particularity requirements of CPLR §§3013 and 3014; and (4) to the extent the claim alleges violations of civil rights under 42 USC §1983, the Court of Claims is not the appropriate forum. Section 11(b) of the Act provides that a "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." The purpose of §11 "is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts . . ." Cannon v State of New York, 163 Misc 2d 623, 626, 622 NYS2d 177, 179 (Ct Cl 1994).

The claim in this case apparently relates in some fashion with events at the New York County Family Court. However, the claim consists primarily of general and conclusory allegations without any underlying facts; it is impossible to determine what it is that happened or how the State is allegedly liable to claimants. "Conclusory or general allegations . . . that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet [the] requirements [of §11 of the Act.]" Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767-68, 433 NYS2d 646, 648 (4th Dept 1980). In short, the claim in this case fails to meet the requirements of §11 of the Act. The remaining bases for defendant's motion need not be reached.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-67408 be granted and claim no. 107969 be dismissed.


November 13, 2003
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims





  1. [1]The following were reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibit A; and claimants' "Answer & Objection to Notice of Motion."