New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WILLIAMS v. DALE ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT, #2006-039-005, Claim No. 112181, Motion No. M-71655


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Albert Williams, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Kathleen M. ArnoldAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 1, 2006

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant filed an inmate claim (# 020-0146-05) and an “add on” inmate claim (# 020-0205-05) with the Clerk of the Court on April 5, 2006. The claims were filed together under claim #112181, and name Dale Artus, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, as defendant. Claimant alleges that he is entitled to monetary relief for the loss of and damage to various items of personal property. During May 2006, defendant brought the instant motion to dismiss, pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3211 (a) (2) and (8), and Court of Claims Act § 10 (9), on the grounds that claimant failed to file inmate claim (#020-0146-05) in a timely manner, that claimant failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his “add on” claim, and that the Court does not have jurisdiction over defendant Artus. Claimant has not submitted any opposition to the motion. Court of Claims Act § 10 (9) provides that

[a] claim of any inmate in the custody of the department of correctional services for recovery of damages for injury to or loss of personal property may not be filed unless and until the inmate has exhausted the personal property claims administrative remedy, established for inmates by the department. Such claim must be filed and served within one hundred twenty days after the date on which the inmate has exhausted such remedy (see also 7 NYCRR § 1700.3).

In support of the motion, defendant offers claimant’s inmate claim forms, which reveal that he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to inmate claim # 020-0146-05 on November 10, 2005. The claim forms further reveal that the inmate “add on” claim was disapproved by the correctional facility upon initial review, and that no further administrative appeal was taken. Defendant also offers copies of the claims, date-stamped by the Attorney General’s Office on March 24, 2006, to establish the date of service of said documents, as well as the affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Kathleen M. Arnold, wherein she attests to the date of service as March 24, 2006. Based upon the foregoing statute and proof, the Court finds that, with respect to inmate claim # 020-0146-05, the time to file and serve the claim expired on March 10, 2006. Since the claim was not served upon the Attorney General until March 24, 2006, or filed with the Clerk of the Court until April 5, 2006, it was not commenced in a timely manner and must therefore be dismissed. Likewise, to the extent that the “add on” claim may be considered a separate claim, it must also be dismissed since claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect thereto, having pursued the matter no further than initial review by the correctional facility (see Matter of Johnson v Artus, 32 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2006]; Matter of McCullough v State of New York, 3 AD3d 749 [2004]).

The Court has considered defendant’s remaining argument that it does not have jurisdiction over defendant Artus and, in light of the foregoing determinations, declines to address the argument at length except to say that it is without merit. “A suit against a State officer will be held to be one which is really asserted against the State when it arises from actions or determinations of the officer made in his or her official role and involves rights asserted, not against the officer individually, but solely against the State” (Morell v Balasubramanian, 70 NY2d 297, 301 [1987]).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Motion No. M-71655 is hereby granted and the claim is dismissed.

December 1, 2006
Albany, New York
Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of Motion dated May 2, 2006; and
  2. Affirmation in Support of Motion, dated May 2, 2006 with exhibits.