New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WHITE v. NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, #2006-036-560, Claim No. 112457, Motion No. M-71993


Synopsis


Claim dismissed – late filed, and wrongdoing alleged is against a City agency.

Case Information

UID:
2006-036-560
Claimant(s):
SANDRA WHITE
Claimant short name:
WHITE
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112457
Motion number(s):
M-71993
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
MELVIN L. SCHWEITZER
Claimant’s attorney:
SANDRA WHITE, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBy: Ellen Matowik Russell, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 23, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, supported by an affirmation and two exhibits. Claimant has not submitted papers in opposition to the motion.

The claim arises from an Amended Decision of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (“defendant’), dated February 14, 2006, attached as an exhibit to the claim. According to that decision, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services initiated a child maltreatment complaint against claimant in 2004, a hearing was scheduled for August 10, 2004, and claimant defaulted. Subsequently, claimant requested that the default be reopened, which was granted, a new hearing was held, and in the February 14, 2006 decision, defendant found that the City agency “did not prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the Appellant committed the maltreatment alleged” and that since the allegations were not sustained, the initial report may not be disclosed in response to inquiries from potential employers.

Prior to the issuance of the Amended Decision, according to the allegations of the claim, claimant was listed on defendant’s Central Register Database as the “subject of an indicated report,” which claimant alleges resulted in her losing her job.

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim on two grounds: (1) that it was filed and served more than 90 days following accrual, and (2) because claimant has sued the wrong party defendant. Defendant is correct on both counts. The latest possible accrual date based on the alleged facts would be the date of the Amended Decision, February 14, 2006. The claim was filed June 21, 2006 and served June 22, 2006, more than 90 days later. Thus, the court lacks jurisdiction (Court of Claims Act §§ 10[3], 10[3-b]). Moreover, claimant’s allegations of wrongdoing refer to the actions of an agency of the City of New York, over which the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction. Actions against the City are properly brought in Supreme Court, pursuant to the provisions of the General Municipal Law, including, in appropriate cases, those applicable to a request for permission to file a late notice of claim.

In any event, the motion must be, and hereby is, granted, without prejudice to whatever right claimant may have to proceed against the City of New York in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.


October 23, 2006
New York, New York

HON. MELVIN L. SCHWEITZER
Judge of the Court of Claims