New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BACKMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-059, Claim No. 106180, Motion No. M-67035


Synopsis


Unopposed motion to dismiss is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-059
Claimant(s):
PRINCE BACKMAN
Claimant short name:
BACKMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106180
Motion number(s):
M-67035
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
PRINCE BACKMAN, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney Genera
BY: JAMES L. GELORMINI, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 6, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on motion by Defendant for an order dismissing the claim:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed June 30, 2003;
  1. Affirmation of James L. Gelormini, Esq., dated June 25, 2003;
3. Filed documents: Claim and Answer. This is Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim as untimely and for failing to state a cause of action. In his underlying claim filed on June 5, 2002, Claimant alleges several apparently unrelated instances of mistreatment, including being forced to stay in unclean cells, being served overcooked and cold food, and being harassed and assaulted by correction officers.

Defendant brings this motion to dismiss the claim alleging that the claim is untimely, at least with regard to most of the events alleged, and that the remaining events, which are not time barred, fail to state a cause of action against the State. Defendant correctly points out that, as the claim was filed on June 5, 2002, only those events that had occurred during the previous 90 days (after March 4, 2002) were asserted in a timely fashion [Court of Claims Act § 10(3)]. Defendant asserts that the remaining allegations of the claim are vague, conclusory, and purport to set forth a federal civil rights violation over which this Court does not have jurisdiction.

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.

August 6, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims