New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

KING v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, #2004-028-533, Claim No. 106758, Motion Nos. M-67855, CM-68216


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-028-533
Claimant(s):
OKELA KING The caption of this action is amended sua sponte to reflect the City University of New York as the only properly named defendant.
Claimant short name:
KING
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption of this action is amended sua sponte to reflect the City University of New York as the only properly named defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106758
Motion number(s):
M-67855
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-68216
Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
RONALD B. McGUIRE, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Grace A. BranniganAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 30, 2004
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In deciding the instant Motions, the Court has read and considered the following papers:

(1) Notice of Motion to Discontinue claim without prejudice, dated December 31, 2003 and filed on January 5, 2004;

(2) Affirmation in Support of Ronald B. McGuire, Esq., dated December 31, 2003 and filed on January 5, 2004, together with Exhibit 1;

(3) Claimant's Memorandum of Law dated December 31, 2003 and received on January 5, 2004;

(4) Notice of Cross-Motion to Dismiss, dated March 18, 2004 and filed on March 22, 2004;

(5) Affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Grace A. Brannigan in Opposition to the Motion and in Support of the Cross-Motion, dated March 18, 2004 and filed on March 22, 2004, together with Exhibits "A-C"

(6) Reply Affirmation of Ronald B. McGuire, Esq., dated April 5, 2004 filed on April 6, 2004 together with annexed Exhibits "1-3".

In the present claim, the claimant seeks damages for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. The Claimant's present motion seeks to discontinue the claim without prejudice; the State's cross-motion seeks to have the claim dismissed with prejudice; the Reply papers argue that the cross-motion is frivolous and seeks costs.

After reviewing the papers of both sides, the Court concludes that the matter should have been disposed of without resort to motion practice.

Accordingly, the motion is denied and the cross-motion is granted to the limited extent that the claim is dismissed without prejudice to the Claimant to bring an action in any other court of competent jurisdiction, or to bring a claim in the Court of Claims for any future violation of the Claimant's rights.


April 30, 2004
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims