New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FINKELMAN v. NEW YORK STATE , NEW YORK STATE POLICE, JOHN DOES, JANE DOE, UNKNOWN ENTITIES, #2006-010-002, Claim No. 111403, Motion No. M-71120


Synopsis


Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The claim fails to state with sufficient specificity the nature of a cognizable cause of action for which recovery can be had against the State.

Case Information

UID:
2006-010-002
Claimant(s):
LAWRENCE L. FINKELMAN
Claimant short name:
FINKELMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
NEW YORK STATE , NEW YORK STATE POLICE, JOHN DOES, JANE DOE, UNKNOWN ENTITIES
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111403
Motion number(s):
M-71120
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
LAWRENCE L. FINKELMANPro 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:
January 27, 2006
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits, Amended Notice of Motion, Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits.......................................................................1

Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss...........................................................2

Claim No. 111403 was served and filed on September 22, 2005. The claim alleges an accrual date of November 3, 2004 for "CONSPIRACY TO THREATEN AND INTIMIDATE A WITNESS BY DEFENENDANTS [SIC] IN A FELONY GRAND LARCENY OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. CONSPIRACY TO COVER-UP AND CONCEAL FROM PROSECUTION A FELONY GRAND LARCENY BY DEFENDANTS" (Defendants' Ex. B). Court of Claims Act §11 provides, "[t]he 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." In construing the requirements of Court of Claims Act §11, it has been stated that:
"[w]hat is required is not absolute exactness, but simply a statement made with sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances. The statement must be specific enough so as not to mislead, deceive or prejudice the rights of the State. In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required"


(Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767). Even upon a most liberal reading of the claim, it fails to state with sufficient specificity the nature of a cognizable cause of action for which recovery can be had against the State (see Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, supra).[1] Additionally, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the "New York State Police, John Does, Jane Doe, Unknown Entities" (see Murph v State of New York, 105 Misc 2d 684).

Accordingly, defendants' motion is GRANTED and Claim No. 111403 is dismissed.


January 27, 2006
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] Claimant's untimely opposition papers are insufficient to remedy the claim's jurisdictional defects.