New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRISSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-108, Claim No. 107932, Motion No. M-67280


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-031-108
Claimant(s):
CURTIS BRISSON
Claimant short name:
BRISSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107932
Motion number(s):
M-67280
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
CURTIS BRISSON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: HEATHER R. RUBINSTEIN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 30, 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 dismissal of the claim:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed August 6, 2003:
2. Affirmation of Heather R. Rubinstein, dated August 4, 2003;
3. Filed documents: Claim. This is Defendant's motion for dismissal of the claim for failing to state a cause of action. In his underlying claim filed on June 26, 2003, Claimant alleges that on May 15, 2003, while being transported from Auburn Correctional Facility to Cayuga Correctional Facility in a Department of Correctional Services van, he became uncomfortable from the heat and lack of adequate ventilation and felt as if he would pass out or get sick.

Defendant brings this motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that it fails to state a cause of action against the State. Defendant correctly points out that the allegations of the claim fail to set forth a threat to Claimant's health that rises to the level of a violation of the New York State Constitution (DeLaRosa v State of New York, 173 Misc 2d 1007). To the extent that Claimant alleges violations of his federal civil rights, this Court does not have jurisdiction over such actions (Zagarella v State of New York, 149 AD2d 503).

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


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

December 30, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims