New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FOOTE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-010-007, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-72646


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion for leave to serve and file a late claim is denied, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, State is immune in parole determinations.

Case Information

UID:
2007-010-007
Claimant(s):
FRANCINE FOOTE
Claimant short name:
FOOTE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-72646
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant’s attorney:
FRANCINE FOOTEPro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
`HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
February 5, 2007
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant’s motion for leave to serve and file a late claim:
Notice of Motion, Claimant’s Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits............................1

Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits....................................................................2

The proposed claim alleges unlawful imprisonment from December 11, 2005 to March 15, 2006 and seeks damages for mental anguish suffered by claimant and her four children.

The undisputed facts are as follows. On September 9, 2005, claimant was taken into custody by the New York State Division of Parole for an alleged parole violation under warrant 411187. The maximum expiration date for parole was December 11, 2005. After a series of adjournments, a contested hearing was held on December 15, 2005. Administrative Law Judge Beltrani dismissed five of the six charges and imposed a six-month assessment on the remaining charge. Thereafter, claimant’s legal aid attorney presented telephone records to the Chief Administrative Law Judge who then forwarded the records to the New York State Division of Parole. The decision of Administrative Law Judge Beltrani was ordered vacated and the matter was set down for a hearing de novo on March 13, 2006. At that hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found insufficient evidence to sustain the charge against claimant; thereby canceling the delinquency and the warrant was lifted. Based on the dismissal of the charge against her, claimant seeks damages for the time she was detained from December 11, 2005 until March 13, 2006. Accordingly, claimant seeks leave to file and serve a late claim.

Claimant’s application is DENIED for several reasons. Significantly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the proposed claim because the Court does not have the power to review determinations made by administrative agencies such as the New York State Division of Parole (Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419, affd 135 AD2d 1155). Furthermore, determinations pertaining to parole and its revocation are quasi-judicial in nature and therefore the State is absolutely immune from tort actions arising from such decisions (see Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511). Additionally, the State’s immunity is not altered by the circumstances that the decision of the parole board was eventually determined to have been in error (see Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511, supra at 517-18; Semkus v State of New York, 272 AD2d 74, 75).

Accordingly, claimant will not be granted leave to serve and file a late claim because she cannot sustain such an action in this Court.

Motion DENIED.


February 5, 2007
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims