New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GEBBIA v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-045-001, Claim No. 115193, Motion Nos. M-75081, CM-75341


Synopsis


defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure of claim to comply with 11-b; cross-motion to file a late claim.

Case Information

UID:
2009-045-001
Claimant(s):
TRACY GEBBIA
Claimant short name:
GEBBIA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115193
Motion number(s):
M-75081
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-75341
Judge:
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant’s attorney:
Stephen J. McGiff, P.C.By: Stephen J. McGiff, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Kimberly A. Kinirons, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 7, 2009
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Defendant’s Notice of Motion, Defendant’s Affirmation in Support with annexed Exhibit A, Claimant’s Notice of Cross-Motion, Claimant’s Affirmation in Opposition with annexed Exhibit and Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition. Defendant, the State of New York, has brought this motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act (CCA) § 11(b) and Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(2) seeking an order dismissing the claim. Claimant, Tracy Gebbia, opposes this motion and in the alternative seeks an order enabling her to file a late claim pursuant to CCA § 10(6).

Defendant argues that the claim is jurisdictionally defective for failing to comply with the requirements of CCA § 11(b). Defendant continues that the claim is also deficient since it merely provides broad and conclusory allegations of false arrest which do not apprise defendant of “any information needed to investigate this matter.”

CCA § 11(b) requires in pertinent part that “the claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained.” These requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with in order to properly initiate an action against defendant (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007]).

An independent reading of the claim reveals, inter alia, that on February 4, 2008 at approximately 11:00 p.m. at the premises located at 124 Matthews Street, Farmingdale, New York claimant was falsely arrested by New York State Police Officers. Claimant further alleges in the claim that the arrest occurred, inter alia, due to the negligence of the New York State Police Officers and the Court Personnel of the County of Nassau Criminal Clerk’s Office. Thus, the Court finds that claimant has supplied sufficient information in the claim to satisfy the requirements of CCA § 11(b).

A claim must also provide enough detail to allow defendant an opportunity to perform a meaningful investigation into the facts surrounding the subject incident (see Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 [4th Dept 1980]). The Court finds that the claim is adequate in this regard as well.


Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied. Accordingly, claimant’s cross-motion is denied as moot.

January 7, 2009
Hauppauge, New York

HON. GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims