New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ID-DEEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-031-017, Claim No. 114592, Motion No. M-74421


Synopsis


Questions regarding manner of service of claim preclude granting dismissal on that basis. However, claim fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Claim is dismissed sua sponte

Case Information

UID:
2008-031-017
Claimant(s):
NASIR ID-DEEN
1 1.The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the State of New York as the only proper Defendant.
Claimant short name:
ID-DEEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the State of New York as the only proper Defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114592
Motion number(s):
M-74421
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant’s attorney:
NASIR ID-DEEN, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
New York State Attorney General
BY: TIMOTHY P. MULVEY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 6, 2008
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers were read on motion by Defendant for dismissal of the claim:
1. Defendant’s Notice of Motion, filed January 11, 2008;
2. Affirmation of Timothy P. Mulvey, Esq., dated January 9, 2008, with attached exhibit;
3. Claimant’s unsworn statement, received January 28, 2008, with attached exhibits;
4. Filed Documents: Claim. With this motion, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss Claimant’s action for failing to comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(a). Specifically, Defendant asserts that the claim was served upon the Attorney General by regular mail and not certified mail, return receipt requested as required by that section. Defendant has adequately demonstrated that the claim was served by regular mail (Defendant’s Exhibit A).

I am a bit troubled, however, by Claimant’s submission which appears to demonstrate that he requested and was charged by Auburn Correctional Facility for service upon Defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested. I note that there is precedent indicating that, when an inmate’s attempts to properly serve or file a document are thwarted by agents of Defendant, Defendant can be estopped from objecting to the manner of service (Wattley v State of New York, 146 Misc 2d 968). From the record before me, it appears that this may be one of those times and I am uncomfortable dismissing the claim on this basis.

However, in reviewing this motion, the underlying claim in this matter has been brought to the Court’s attention. This raises a very different question of a jurisdictional nature which must be addressed. In his claim, Mr. Id-Deen alleges merely that his right to the free exercise of religion was violated when “someone from the mess hall took me off Ramadam [sic] fasting list 9/26/07 for keeplock” (Claim, par. 2). Not only does Mr. Id-Deen fail to indicate who took him off the list, he has failed to indicate how this violated his right to exercise his religion or how he was injured. More specifically, an action such as Claimant’s, for a violation of Federal Constitutional rights, must be pursued in Federal Court (Davis v State of New York, 124 AD2d 420). To the extent that Claimant intended to assert a violation of the New York State constitution, this Court, again, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 184; Van Duyne v State of New York, Ct Cl, August 4, 2003 [Claim No. 103802], Hard, J., UID #2003-032-518). It is well settled that a court cannot ignore the fact that the subject matter jurisdiction of an action brought before it is lacking. Such a jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time, or even sua sponte (CPLR 3211(e); Eckert v Eckert, 34 AD2d 684; Williams v State of New York, Ct Cl, August 17, 2001 [Claim No. 102081, Motion Nos. M-63063 and M-63531], Collins, J., UID No. 2001-015-171; see also Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718).

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, that the claim is this matter is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

March 6, 2008
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims