New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LYONS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-030-904, Claim No. 108030, Motion Nos. M-67647, CM-67720


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-030-904
Claimant(s):
JAMES LYONS
Claimant short name:
LYONS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108030
Motion number(s):
M-67647
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-67720
Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
James Lyons, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney Generalby Grace A. Brannigan, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 18, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The court read and considered the following papers on defendant's motion for summary


judgment and claimant's cross-motion for an order holding defendant in contempt of court,


granting summary judgment, and for other relief: Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits;


Notice of Cross-Motion, Affidavit and Exhibits, Reply Affirmation.

Claimant alleges various causes of action – including malicious prosecution, violation of constitutional rights, defamation and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress – arising out of a proceeding in housing court in Queens County on February 10, 2003. The instant claim was served on June 26, 2003 and filed on July 21, 2003. Defendant moves to dismiss the claim because it was untimely served and filed and also because the claim fails to adequately apprise the defendant of the nature of the claim, as required by Court of Claims Act section11(b).

Court of Claims Act section 10(3) requires that a claim for personal injuries or property damage based on allegations of intentional tort or negligence be served and filed within 90 days of accrual, which was not done here. Claimant's argument that the six-month period for serving and filing claims sounding in breach of contract applies in this case is misplaced, notwithstanding claimant's efforts to characterize his claims as arising from a contract entered into in housing court between him and his adversary.

Although claimant states that he served a notice of intention, defendant denies receiving one and the affidavit of service that claimant submitted is not in proper form nor does it reflect personal delivery to an assistant attorney general. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to resolve this factual dispute because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim regardless of whether service was proper and/or timely. In his motion papers, claimant makes clear that his allegations of wrongdoing are based on actions taken by the New York City Police Department and the Queens County District Attorney. New York City and Queens County are independent governmental entities and the State of New York is not responsible for the actions of the employees of such entities. Additionally, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over actions against the City of New York or a county (Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60).

Accordingly, the cross-motion is denied, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed, without prejudice to whatever rights claimant has to proceed against New York City and Queens County in a court with appropriate jurisdiction


February 18, 2004
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims