New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MITCHELL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-015-122, Claim No. 111167-A, Motion No. M-71866


Synopsis


Court of claims was without jurisdiction to order a State Officer to refrain from taking action.

Case Information

UID:
2006-015-122
Claimant(s):
MARK MITCHELL
Claimant short name:
MITCHELL
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111167-A
Motion number(s):
M-71866
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
Mark Mitchell, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Dennis M. Acton, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 6, 2006
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant's motion is granted in so far as it seeks additional time to serve and file a verified bill of particulars. The remaining relief sought in the motion is denied. The instant motion, which lacks a sworn affidavit, in part seeks an order directing the Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility and his subordinates to cease and desist from interfering with claimant's application for a writ of coram nobis. By decision and order dated July 14, 2006 the Court denied a motion by the claimant seeking similar relief regarding alleged interference by the same superintendent with a habeas corpus application.

The defendant has opposed the motion except for that portion which seeks additional time for claimant to serve and file a verified bill of particulars. Defense counsel agreed to extend such time to July 20, 2006. The Court hereby extends that time to October 10, 2006.

The additional relief requested in the motion is denied. As noted in the Court's prior decision, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to order a State officer to take or refrain from taking action (see Matter of Silverman v Comptroller of State of N.Y., 40 AD2d 225). "[T]he extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16)" (Matter of Ceballos v Starky, 239 AD2d 414). The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and the powers conferred upon it do not include the authority to provide the type of equitable relief requested even had the motion been properly supported by a sworn affidavit (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759; Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670).

Except as provided herein the claimant's motion is denied.



September 6, 2006
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated June 9, 2006;
  2. Unsworn "affidavit" of Mark Mitchell dated June 9, 2006;
  3. Affidavit of Dennis M. Acton sworn to June 30, 2006;
  4. Affidavit of Harold D. Graham sworn to June 27, 2006.