New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

EDWARDS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-016-053, Claim No. 115216, Motion No. M-75235


Synopsis


Motion to “dismiss defendant[’s] verified answer and notice of readiness for trial” was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2008-016-053
Claimant(s):
CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS
Claimant short name:
EDWARDS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115216
Motion number(s):
M-75235
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Christopher Edwards, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Roberto Barbosa, AAGNo Appearance
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 29, 2008
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant Christopher Edwards moves “to dismiss defendant’s verified answer and notice of readiness for trial.” In his underlying claim, Mr. Edwards alleges that he was issued a false misbehavior report at Sullivan Correctional Facility. To the extent that claimant refers to a “notice of readiness for trial,” there is no indication in the court’s file that any such document has been filed. As to defendant’s answer, claimant seeks to have it dismissed because he disagrees with the first affirmative defense contained in the verified answer originally filed by defendant, which states that “[t]he Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over the named defendant Lieutenant Hoefling, Sullivan Correctional Facility.” Defendant is correct that the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over individual persons. See, e.g., Smith v State of New York, 72 AD2d 937, 938, 422 NYS2d 221, 222 (4th Dept 1979), affd 59 NY2d 718, 463 NYS2d 439 (1983). To the extent that claimant complains of the actions of officers at Sullivan Correctional Facility, the properly named defendant here is the State of New York.

In any event, it is unclear why claimant makes such argument at this time because prior to the making of this motion, he filed an “Amendment to Claimant’s Claim,” naming only the State of New York as defendant. Defendant then filed a “Verified Amended Answer,” which no longer contains the aforementioned affirmative defense as to Lieutenant Hoefling and Sullivan Correctional Facility.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-75235 be denied.



September 29, 2008
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]On this motion, the court reviewed “claimant’s response, objection and motion to dismiss defendant[’s] verified answer and notice of readiness for trial.” Defendant submitted no opposition papers.