New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
VALLE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., # 2010-016-025, Claim No. 117831, Motion No. M-77750

Synopsis

Incomprehensible claim was dismissed as failing to comply with 11 of the Court of Claims Act.

Case information

UID: 2010-016-025
Claimant(s): ISRAEL VALLE
Claimant short name: VALLE
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 117831
Motion number(s): M-77750
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Israel Valle, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Gwendolyn Hatcher, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: April 6, 2010
City: New York
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Israel Valle on several grounds. In his claim, Mr. Valle refers to various causes of action, such as appropriation, wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, breach of contract, constitutional violations, RICO violations and loss of services. While the claim's caption names various judges and court personnel, Valle provides virtually no facts in the claim, and it is impossible to determine what happened or whether he has a viable claim.

Section 11.b of the Court of Claims Act provides in relevant part that a "claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and, except in an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the total sum claimed." In Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 (2007), the Court of Appeals held that the failure to state any of the foregoing items renders a claim jurisdictionally defective. As set forth above, Valle's claim is largely incomprehensible, and it thus fails to state the nature of the claim for the purposes of 11.b of the Act.

In view of the foregoing, the Court lacks jurisdiction over claim no. 117831 and defendant's remaining arguments need not be reached. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-77750 be granted and that claim no. 117831 be dismissed.

April 6, 2010

New York, New York

Alan C. Marin

Judge of the Court of Claims


1. The Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibit A. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.