Claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|Claimant short name:||BITTON|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Claim number(s):||118003, 118004|
|Motion number(s):||M-77739, M-77812, M-78051|
|Judge:||Alan C. Marin|
|Claimant's attorney:||Danielle Bitton, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Gwendolyn Hatcher, AAG
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||May 11, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
In these essentially identical claims, it is alleged that on January 26, 2010, claimant Danielle Bitton was "followed everywhere" and that "NYCTA lawyers . . . placed [her] life, health, and safety in great danger." Ms. Bitton further alleges that that night, "two men approached [her] and sprayed something on [her]," which, among other things, caused her eyes to swell, her skin to itch and develop sores, muscle immobility and breathing difficulties.
In motion no. M-77739, claimant(1) seeks an order, inter alia, directing the State of New York "to disclose how its agents, employees, [and] municipal . . . unions have acted in bad faith by destroying, altering, switching, [and] forging" various records including ones "that pertain to mental health . . ." In motion no. M-77812, claimant moves for an order directing "municipal unions to stop harassing [her], threatening [her] life, destroying health & property, as well as [a] declaratory judgment pursuant to section 9 (9-a)." In cross-motion no. CM-77970, defendant moves to dismiss claim no. 118004 on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and in motion no. M-78051, defendant moves to dismiss claim no. 118003 on the same ground.
A review of these claims reveals that no allegations are made concerning the State of New York. Rather, claimant refers only to New York City Transit Authority lawyers and two unnamed individuals.
The Court of Claims Act grants this Court jurisdiction over specified suits against the State of New York. A small number of other public entities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims via explicit statutory authority, for example, the New York State Thruway Authority by Public Authorities Law §361-b -- but no such statutory authority lies with respect to the New York City Transit Authority.
Nor does the Court of Claims have jurisdiction over individuals, such as the two men alleged to have sprayed an unknown substance on claimant. See, e.g., Smith v State of New York, 72 AD2d 937, 938, 422 NYS2d 221, 222 (4th Dept 1979), affd 59 NY2d 718, 463 NYS2d 439 (1983).
As to claimant's motions, Ms. Bitton has failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to the relief sought therein.
In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions(2) , it is ordered that cross-motion no. CM-77970 and motion no. M-78051 be granted and that claim nos. 118003 and 118004 be dismissed. It is further ordered that motion nos. M-77739 and M-77812 be denied.
May 11, 2010
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. Although she is not a named claimant on either claim, motion no. M-77739 lists "Saphyre Redford" as a claimant.
2. The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion no. M-77739 with undesignated attachments; defendant's affirmation in opposition to motion no. M-77739; claimant's notice of motion no. M-77812 with affidavit in support and undesignated attachments; defendant's notice of cross-motion no. CM-77970 with annexed affirmation and exhibit A; and defendant's notice of motion no. M-78051 with affirmation in support and exhibit A.