New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOORE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-028, Claim No. 107288, Motion No. M-66528


Synopsis


Unopposed motion to dismiss is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-028
Claimant(s):
JERRY W. MOORE
Claimant short name:
MOORE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107288
Motion number(s):
M-66528
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
JERRY W. MOORE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WILLIAM D. LONERGAN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 22, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 and 4, were read on motion by Defendant for an order dismissing the claim pursuant to CPLR 3126:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed March 12, 2003;
2. Affidavit of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to March 11, 2003, with attached exhibits;
3. Defendant's memorandum of law, dated March 11, 2003;
4. Filed documents: claim. This is Defendant's motion made in lieu of an Answer to dismiss the claim filed in this matter. In his underlying claim filed on February 6, 2003, Jerry W. Moore alleges that, between June 11, 1999 and September 5, 2002, he was improperly barred from entering the campuses of the State University of New York at Buffalo. He seeks damages, alleging that this restriction violated his civil and constitutional rights.

Defendant brings this motion to dismiss the claim alleging that: 1) the claim is untimely; 2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; 3) the claim is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 4) that the State is immune from liability relating to its discretionary decision to suspend Claimant's privileges on the subject campuses.

The Claimant has not submitted any opposition to this motion. Therefore, based upon the papers submitted with this motion, it is

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion for dismissal of the claim is granted. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

May 22, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims