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
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, 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.