New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MYERS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-009-039, Claim No. 113435, Motion No. M-73261


Synopsis


Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim was granted based upon a failure to state a cause of action against the State, as it was based solely upon allegations against the Onondaga County District Attorney and his employees, over whom this Court does not have jurisdiction.

Case Information

UID:
2007-009-039
Claimant(s):
DARRYL B. MYERS
1 1.
The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court.
Claimant short name:
MYERS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113435
Motion number(s):
M-73261
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant’s attorney:
DARRYL B. MYERS, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General
BY: Heather R. Rubinstein, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney General
Of Counsel.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 10, 2007
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant has brought this motion seeking an order dismissing the claim.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affirmation, with Exhibit 1,2


Affidavit of Claimant 3


Filed Papers: Claim.

In this motion, defendant contends that the claim fails to state a cause of action against the State, in that it only includes allegations against the District Attorney of Onondaga County, and his employees, and as a result the Court therefore does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.

The Court’s function on a motion to dismiss is to determine whether the claimant possesses a cause of action, not simply whether he has stated one. In addition, “[t]he pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction ... We accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord [claimant] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory [citations omitted].” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

In this particular matter, the claim does not provide any details regarding the substance of the claim, and the Court finds it extremely difficult to discern any viable cause of action. Notwithstanding this difficulty, it is clear, however, that the allegations set forth therein pertain solely to actions taken by the Onondaga County District Attorney, or his employees (who are specifically named in the caption to this claim). Furthermore, claimant states that the acts or omissions forming the basis of this claim occurred at the Onondaga County District Attorney’s Office in Syracuse, New York.

The Court of Claims is a Court of limited jurisdiction, with power to hear only claims against the State and certain public authorities (Court of Claims Act § 9). Allegations against the Onondaga County District Attorney, or his employees, are not cognizable in this Court (Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60).

Accordingly, for this reason, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-73261 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Claim No. 113435 is hereby DISMISSED.


December 10, 2007
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims