New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
RUDY v. 123 pct et al

103 Main Street


SI NY 10307

, # 2010-016-033, Claim No. 117966, Motion No. M-78001


Claim making allegations against the New York City Police Department and the District Attorney's Office was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Case information

UID: 2010-016-033
Claimant(s): JAY RUDY
Claimant short name: RUDY
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): 123 pct et al
103 Main Street
SI NY 10307
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 117966
Motion number(s): M-78001
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Jay Rudy, Pro Se
No Appearance
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: May 13, 2010
City: New York
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Jay Rudy on several grounds. In his claim, Mr. Rudy alleges that he was arrested by the New York City Police Department for "carrying [his] own [medication]." He further alleges that the District Attorney's Office failed to prosecute a person against whom he had pressed charges.

The Court of Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the State of New York and a limited number of other entities specifically enumerated by statute. The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over the City of New York or its police department. As to the District Attorney's Office, the State is not liable for the actions of district attorneys, as they are not State officers. See Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60 (1961).

In view of the foregoing, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim of Jay Rudy and defendant's remaining arguments need not be reached. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-78001 be granted and that claim no. 117966 be dismissed.

May 13, 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.