New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PINA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-029, Claim No. 102307-A, Motion No. M-67149


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-029
Claimant(s):
HENRY PINA Caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only proper Defendant.
Claimant short name:
PINA
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only proper Defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102307-A
Motion number(s):
M-67149
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
HENRY PINA, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WILLIAM D. LONERGAN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 4, 2004
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is Claimant's motion for an order compelling disclosure from Defendant. In deciding this motion, I have read and reviewed the following papers:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion filed July 25, 2003, with attached documents labeled "argument" and "brief," as well as attached exhibits;
2. Affidavit of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to July 24, 2003;
3. Filed Documents: Claim and Verified Answer. This is Claimant's motion to compel Defendant to properly respond to his discovery demands. In his underlying action, Claimant alleges that between June 12 and June 27, 1999, he was placed in a "double-bunk" cell with a violently ill inmate. Claimant alleges that he was unable to sleep, that he was forced to clean up after this other inmate, and that he suffered emotional and psychological trauma as a result of this experience. Claimant alleges that Defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights during this two week period.

In reviewing this motion, the underlying claim in this matter has been brought to the Court's attention. This claim raises a very different question of a jurisdictional nature which must be addressed. An action, such as Claimant's, for a violation of Federal Constitutional rights must be pursued in Federal Court (Davis v State of New York, 124 AD2d 420). This Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 185). It is well settled that a court cannot ignore the fact that subject matter jurisdiction of an action brought before it is lacking. Such a jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time, or even sua sponte (Eckert v Eckert, 34 AD2d 684; Williams v State of New York, Ct Cl, August 17, 2001 [Claim No. 102081, Motion Nos. M-63063, M-63531], Collins, J., UID #2001-015-171; see also Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718).

Similarly, to the extent that Claimant has alleged that Defendant has intentionally caused him emotional distress, public policy prohibits an action against the State for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and, therefore, such a claim is not cognizable in this Court (Brown v State of New York, 125 AD2d 750, lv dismissed 70 NY2d 747; Wheeler v State of New York, 104 AD2d 496; De Lesline v State of New York, 91 AD2d 785, lv denied 58 NY2d 610).

Based on the foregoing, it is;

ORDERED, the claim in this matter is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Claimant's motion to compel disclosure is denied as moot.

May 4, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims