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 ).
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.