New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

EVANS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-015-397, Claim No. 108691, Motion No. M-68034


Synopsis


Pro se claimant failed to state any cause of action cognizable at law so claim was dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2004-015-397
Claimant(s):
GEORGE EVANS
1 1.The Court sua sponte amended the claim to name the only proper defendant to the action.
Claimant short name:
EVANS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court sua sponte amended the claim to name the only proper defendant to the action.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108691
Motion number(s):
M-68034
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
George Evans, Pro Se No Appearance
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Kathleen M. Resnick, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 21, 2004
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 for failure to state a cause of action and for failure to comply with the claim specificity requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is granted. It is impossible to decipher a viable cause of action against the State of New York from the papers filed and served by the pro se claimant in this matter. Despite oblique references to the Mental Hygiene Legal Service (Mental Hygiene Law, Art. 47) and use of the words "attorney misconduct" and "legal negligence" claimant has provided no substantive allegations to support a cause of action for legal malpractice or any other form of negligence on the part of the defendant. Much of the "claim" appears to pertain to a proposed settlement involving the transfer of a deed to real property located in East Greenbush to the claimant, a court ordered payment of $3,500 per week for 25 years or the remainder of claimant's life, whichever is longer, relief from local, county, State and Federal taxes for his lifetime, as well as a direction to the New York State Police to seize a named female and deliver her to the claimant.

Even viewed in the most liberal light the instant claim clearly fails to state any cause of action cognizable at law (Foley v D'Agostino, 21 AD2d 60). Although claimant named the Mental Hygiene Legal Service, his papers fail to allege any specific act or omission on the part of the service, its employees or agents which may give rise to liability (see, Bonaparte v State of New York, 175 AD2d 683). The claim, therefore, fails to state a cause of action.

Moreover, in relevant part, section 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act provides:
b. The 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 instant claim fails to allege a time and place of accrual, the nature of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim, how or in what manner claimant was injured and the total sum claimed. It thus deprives the State of the ability to investigate, defend or settle the claim (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767). The claim is therefore jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201; see also, Bowles v State of New York, 208 AD2d 440).

Defendant's motion is granted and the instant claim is dismissed.


April 21, 2004
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated February 9, 2004;
  2. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Resnick dated February 9, 2004 with exhibits.