New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LAROCCO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-016-036, Claim No. 111943, Motion Nos. M-71341, M-71437, M-71458,


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-016-036
Claimant(s):
DOMINICK LAROCCO
Claimant short name:
LAROCCO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111943
Motion number(s):
M-71341, M-71437, M-71458,
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Dominick Larocco, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ellen Matowik Russell, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 17, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In motion no. M-71341, Dominick Larocco moves for an order granting him poor person status and assigning him an attorney. In motion no. M-71437, the State moves to dismiss the claim, and in motion no. M-71458, Mr. Larocco moves for an order striking the State’s “answer/motion” and “granting claimant[’]s claim . . .” Claimant alleges that he was wrongfully charged and indicted for murder in the second degree and for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and that he was “wrongfully convicted of attempted murder in the second degree by being coerced into pleading guilty by the

. . . trial judge . . . ,” after which he was sentenced to 8 to 16 years in prison. See claim, p. 2. Such charges, plea and sentencing were the subject of a previous claim brought by Mr. Larocco (no. 109598), which was dismissed in an October 26, 2004 Decision and Order on motion no. M-68950, on the ground that the claim contained no allegations of wrongdoing by the State of New York, and the Court thus lacked jurisdiction.

With regard to the instant claim, to the extent it contains allegations implicating the State, any claims based on such allegations which could be brought in this Court must fail. As to a cause of action under §8-b of the Court of Claims Act (the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act), such specifically requires that to present a claim thereunder, claimant’s judgment of conviction must have been reversed or vacated, which Mr. Larocco does not contend. To the extent he alleges that the trial court judge coerced his 1997 guilty plea, any possible cause of action based on same would be untimely. See Article 2 of the Court of Claims Act. In view of the foregoing, motion nos. M-71341 and M-71458 need not be reached.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties’ submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-71437 be granted and that claim no. 111943 be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motion nos. M-71341 and M-71458 be denied.


May 17, 2006
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant’s notice of motion no. M-71341 with “affirmation” in support; defendant’s notice of motion no. M-71437 with affirmation in support and exhibits A and B; claimant’s notice of motion no. M-71458 with “affirmation” in support; defendant’s affirmation in opposition to motion no. M-71458; claimant’s letter dated March 26, 2006; claimant’s April 14, 2006 “Reply [Affirmation] to the [Defendant’s] Affirmation Dated April 12, 2006 . . .”; and claimant’s March 26, 2006 “Notice of Motion” seeking oral argument. As to the request for oral argument, the Court finds that such is not necessary in order to determine these motions.