New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MORALES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-042-522, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-73442


Synopsis


This matter comes before the court on a motion by the pro se claimant for permission to file a late claim. It is defendant’s contention that the claim lack merit in that it fails to state a cause of action against the State. Claimant’s motion is denied and the claim is dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2007-042-522
Claimant(s):
ROBERTO MORALES
Claimant short name:
MORALES
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-73442
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NORMAN I. SIEGEL
Claimant’s attorney:
ROBERTO MORALES, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: G. LAWRENCE DILLON, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 30, 2007
City:
Utica
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant brings this matter before the court for permission to file a late claim. The court has considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of Motion, filed May 24, 2007
  2. Affidavit of Roberto Morales, sworn to May 16, 2007
  3. Exhibits annexed to the moving papers
  4. Letter from G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq., dated June 4, 2007
  5. Opposition affirmation of G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq., dated June 4, 2007
  6. Exhibits A - C, annexed to the opposition affirmation
  7. Reply affirmation of Roberto Morales, dated June 19, 2007
______________________________________


This matter comes before the court on a motion by the pro se claimant for permission to file a late claim. The proposed claim states that “[t]his claim is a fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of the State for the actions of one of its representatives”. The proposed claim goes on to describe this representative, stating that “this employee was employed by the Rockland County District Attorney’s office within the State of New York”. The proposed claim involves alleged improperly redacted FOIL material provided to the claimant by the aforementioned employee of the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office.

It is defendant’s contention that the claim lacks merit in that it fails to state a cause of action against the State, which has no nexus to the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office. The defendant alleges further that claimant has failed to meet the statutory criterial of Court of Claims Act Section 10 (6) for the filing of a late claim.

The proposed claim clearly lacks merit. By its allegations, it assumes that the district attorney’s office is a state agency. This is simply not so. The Rockland County District Attorney’s Office is not an agency of the State of New York or otherwise subject to legal action under the provisions of the Court of Claims Act (see Court of Claims Act § 9). “[T]he State is not subject to liability in the Court of Claims for the consequences of official acts of a district attorney, under the theory of respondeat superior, because he is not an officer or employee of the State” (Fuller v State of New York, 11 AD3d 365, citing Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60).

Inasmuch as the claim fails to set forth a meritorious cause of action against the defendant, the motion is denied. It is unnecessary for the court to consider whether the claimant met the other criteria, set forth in Court of Claims Act Section 10 (6), for the filing of a late claim.



July 30, 2007
Utica, New York

HON. NORMAN I. SIEGEL
Judge of the Court of Claims