New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BROWN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-040-042, Claim No. 115224, Motion No. M-74988


Synopsis


State’s CPLR 3211, pre-answer, motion to dismiss granted.

Case Information

UID:
2008-040-042
Claimant(s):
JOSH BROWN, #05A4677
1 1.Caption amended to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant.
Claimant short name:
BROWN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Caption amended to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115224
Motion number(s):
M-74988
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
Josh Brown, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Kent B. Sprotbery, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 26, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 is granted and the Claim is dismissed.

Claimant filed a Claim with the Clerk of the Court on May 7, 2008 and an Amended Claim on June 5, 2008. The Amended Claim alleges that four correction officers, three sergeants and three nurses, all of whom are named, and all of whom work at Upstate Correctional Facility in Malone, New York, are committing a crime and violating several provisions of the Correction Law, because they are being paid to work five days a week and only work four.

The State moved to dismiss on the basis that the allegations fail to set forth a valid claim (Affirmation of Kent B. Sprotbery, ¶ 5). In his letter in response to the State’s motion, Claimant asserts that his Claim is “very valid and should not be dismissed.” He further asserts that Defendant is deliberately causing him “mental and emotional injuries.”

A Claim alleging deliberate emotional injury is really a cause of action seeking intentional infliction of emotional distress. Claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress against governmental bodies are barred as a matter of public policy (Augat v State of New York, 244 AD2d 835, 837 [3d Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 814 [1998]; Brown v State of New York, 125 AD2d 750, 752 [3d Dept 1986], lv dismissed 70 NY2d 747 [1987]). Neither Claimant’s Claim nor Amended Claim asserts any other cause of action. Therefore, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted as the Claim is barred by public policy.


June 26, 2008
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 the Claim:

Papers Numbered


Notice of Motion, Affirmation in
Support and Exhibit Attached 1

Letter in Opposition 2

Reply Affirmation 3



Filed papers: Claim, Amended Claim