New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BROWN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-031, Claim No. 108635


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed as inmate claimant failed to serve the Office of the Attorney General with a claim.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-031
Claimant(s):
LEYTON BROWN
Claimant short name:
BROWN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108635
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
LEYTON BROWNPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date:
May 26, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
Claimant seeks damages for injuries he allegedly sustained during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. This claim was heard in a unified trial.
At trial,
defendant moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that claimant failed to serve the Office of the Attorney General with a claim. An affidavit of a clerk in the Claims Bureau of the Office of the Attorney General stated that there was no record that a claim had been served on the Attorney General (Ex. A). The Court reserved decision on the motion and permitted claimant to testify.
Claimant testified that, due to medication administered to him at the facility, "no sperm came out of his sperm ducts."[1] He further testified that, when he refused to continue taking the medication, he became the victim of excessive force by the "riot squad." The allegations of excessive force were not set forth in his claim. Claimant's conclusory testimony was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover, claimant's testimony, even if credible, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The provisions of Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 are to be strictly construed and failure to comply with the service provision "is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim" (
Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 497-98). Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss, upon which decision was reserved, is now GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 108635.


May 26, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] All quotations are to the trial notes or audiotapes unless otherwise indicated.