New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VALLE v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-040-060, Claim No. 112656, Motion No. M-73964


Synopsis


State’s motion to dismiss pro se Claim denied as Claim State seeks to dismiss is not the Claim filed with the Court.

Case Information

UID:
2007-040-060
Claimant(s):
ISRAEL VALLE
1 1.The Court amends the caption to reflect the only Defendant over which this Court has jurisdiction.
Claimant short name:
VALLE
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court amends the caption to reflect the only Defendant over which this Court has jurisdiction.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112656
Motion number(s):
M-73964
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
Israel Valle, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Ralph J. Bavaro, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
November 7, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Claim No. 112656, based upon a failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b), is denied.

According to Defense counsel, the Claim was served upon Defendant on June 13, 2006 (see Ex. A attached to Motion). Counsel asserts that the Claim fails to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11(b) by failing to particularize the nature of the Claim and the State’s alleged wrongful conduct and, thus, the Claim is jurisdictionally defective.

The Court has reviewed the State’s motion papers including the attached documents. Exhibit A is a copy of a Claim served upon Defendant on June 13, 2006 and Exhibit B is a Verified Answer to that Claim, which is dated July 21, 2006. Neither document contains a Court of Claims Claim Number. However, each document reflects the same Office of the Attorney General (OAG) Number.

The Claim that the State seeks to dismiss alleges violations of 42 USC § 1983 and the Federal and New York State Constitutions arising from an incident that occurred “on or about or prior to the 6th day of March 2006” at the United States District Court located in New York, New York, when the Defendants “wrongfully and falsely engaged in enterprise corruption, RICO violations and official misconduct” against Claimant and “wrongfully and falsely accused” Claimant with “commencing ‘frivolous and malicious’ litigation” (see Ex. A attached to Motion, ¶ 3).

The Claim that was filed with the Clerk of Court on August 18, 2006 and assigned Claim Number 112656 differs from the Claim attached to the current motion, which the State seeks to dismiss. Claim Number 112656 is prolix and disjointed. To the best of the Court’s understanding, the Claim asserts that, from November 1, 1978 to the present, various Federal, State and New York City government agencies have committed “enterprise corruption, an intentional RICO violations [sic] and official misconduct, negligence, malicious prosecution” and thereby caused personal injury to the pro se Claimant in violation of 42 USC § 1983 and the Federal and New York State Constitutions. The Claim further appears to assert that, since November 1, 1978, the various State and Federal agencies “have permitted an intentional wrongful death claim upon the person of claimant Israel Valle” causing him to sustain injuries (Claim, ¶ 3). The Claim seeks damages in the sum of $100 Billion.

Thus, it is apparent that the Claim that Defendant seeks to dismiss by the current motion is not the Claim the Clerk of the Court has assigned Claim Number 112656. The Court has reviewed the Claim file for Claim Number 112656 and notes that the Verified Answer submitted by the State as Exhibit B is not the Verified Answer filed with the Clerk of the Court in answer to Claim No. 112656. The Verified Answer filed in connection with this Claim has typed on it “Claim No. 112656” and is dated September 22, 2006. In addition, it contains a caption which corresponds to the caption of Claim No. 112656. As noted above, the Verified Answer included as Exhibit B to the State’s motion bears a different date. Moreover, Exhibit A and Exhibit B have identical captions that differ from the caption of this Claim and the Verified Answer filed in connection with it.

The Claim Defendant seeks to dismiss by this motion is not Claim No. 112656. The Court has reviewed its electronic database and the only other pending Claim by Mr. Valle in the Court of Claims was filed July 17, 2007 and was assigned Claim No. 113967. That Claim allegedly accrued on February 14, 2007 and is not related to either Claim No. 112656 or to the Claim Defense Counsel has submitted as Exhibit A to the State’s present motion.

As the State’s motion to dismiss is directed toward a Claim that was served upon the State, but was not filed with the Court, and does not involve Claim No. 112656, the State’s motion to dismiss is denied.


November 7, 2007
Albany, New York

HON. CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims


The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the State’s motion to dismiss:

Papers Numbered:


Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support,
Exhibits Attached 1


Filed Papers: Claim, Answer