New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TURNER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-016-041, Claim No. 109293, Motion No. M-68647


Claim was dismissed as failing to comply with the specificity requirements of §11 of the Court of Claims Act.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Sandra Turner
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Grace A. Brannigan, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 4, 2004
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Sandra Turner; defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the claim fails to comply with the specificity requirements of §11 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). 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 is for "abuse of authority," and the totality of the substantive portion is as follows:
The Criminal Court [has] allowed The Court and Judges, Employees To [illegally] Lock up my son 3 times. He was Beaten up and I told the court officers He needed medical attention they totally Ignored me and I told Them I will file a complaint and the officer told me he did not care. The new Judge [set] High Bail and Judge chong also 20,000 and 15,000 no medical attention

From this scant description, it is impossible to determine what precisely happened, when it happened[1] or whether a cause of action valid in the Court of Claims is implicated. "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.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the parties' submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-68647 be granted and claim no. 109293 be dismissed.

August 4, 2004
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]The dates of accrual are alleged to be December 15, 2003 and February 16 and 26 of [2004]. None of such dates are linked to any particular allegation in the claim.
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibit A; and claimant's affidavit in opposition.