New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YOUNG v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-040-094, Claim No. 115517, Motion No. M-77058


Synopsis


Claim dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.

Case Information

UID:
2009-040-094
Claimant(s):
CEDRIC YOUNG
Claimant short name:
YOUNG
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115517
Motion number(s):
M-77058
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
Cedric Young, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 2, 2009
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), on the basis that the Claim fails to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 9, 10 and 11, is granted and the Claim is dismissed.

The Claim, which was filed with the Clerk on July 14, 2008, asserts that Claimant’s Federal and State Constitutional rights were violated at four parole board hearings because, inter alia, the parole board members: (1) relied upon false information; (2) penalized Claimant for not speaking about his crime at the hearing; and (3) penalized Claimant for not showing remorse for his crime when they denied Claimant parole. Claimant alleges that the Defendant: (1) deprived him of his right to Equal Protection, pursuant to Article 1, §11 of the New York State Constitution and Due Process, pursuant to Article 1, §6 of the New York State Constitution; and (2) subjected Claimant to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Article 1, §5 of the New York State Constitution.

In Brown v State of New York (89 NY2d 172 [1996]), the Court of Appeals “recognized that, when certain requirements are met, a violation of the [New York State] Constitution may give rise to a private cause of action” (Waxter v State of New York, 33 AD3d 1180, 1181 [3d Dept 2006]; see Wagoner v State of New York, Claim No. 109368, dated April 2, 2008, Mignano, J. [UID No. 2008-29-014]). In Martinez v City of Schenectady (97 NY2d 78 [2001]), however, the Court of Appeals made it clear that Brown establishes a “narrow remedy,” applicable in cases where no other remedy is feasible to provide citizens with “an avenue of redress” when their private interests have been harmed by constitutional violations (Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, supra at 83; see Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1150 [3d Dept 2009]; Waxter v State of New York, 33 AD3d 1180, supra at 1181). Where an adequate remedy could be provided, however, “a constitutional tort claim ... is [not] necessary to effectuate the purposes of the State constitutional protections ... [invoked] nor appropriate to ensure full realization of [claimants’] rights” (Bullard v State of New York, 307 AD2d 676, 679 [3d Dept 2003], quoting Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, supra at 83).

In the present Claim, recognition of the State constitutional causes of action are neither necessary nor appropriate to ensure the full realization of Claimant’s rights, because the alleged wrongs can be redressed by an alternative remedy, namely, an appeal of the Parole Board’s determination and then an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court (see Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, supra at 83; Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, supra at 1150; Bullard v State of New York, 307 AD2d 676, supra at 679). The Court notes that Claimant states that he has appealed three of the Parole Board’s decisions and that another is in the process of being appealed (Claimant’s Affidavit in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 14).

Regarding Claimant’s causes of action that assert a deprivation of rights under the Federal Constitution, no action may be maintained in this Court against the State for alleged Federal constitutional violations (Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, supra at 1151; Lyles v State of New York, 194 Misc 2d 32, 35-36 [Ct Cl 2002], affd 2 AD3d 694, 696 [2d Dept 2003], affd on other grounds 3 NY 3d 396 [2004]; Zito v State of New York, 15 Misc 3d 1116[A] [Ct Cl 2007]; Suarez v State of New York, 14 Misc 3d 1230[A] [Ct Cl 2006]; Torres v State of New York, 13 Misc 3d 574, 575 [Ct Cl 2006]). To the extent that Claimant asserts Federal constitutional violations, his remedy lies elsewhere, and such causes of action are dismissed.

Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, the State’s motion is granted and the Claim is hereby dismissed.


December 2, 2009
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:

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support 1

Affidavit in Opposition & Exhibits Attached 2


Filed Papers: Claim, Answer