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, ¶
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.