New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims


, # 2010-016-063, Claim No. 118748, Motion No. M-78773


Case information

UID: 2010-016-063
Claimant(s): HUBERT LEWIS
Claimant short name: LEWIS
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 118748
Motion number(s): M-78773
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Hubert Lewis, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Ross N. Herman, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: October 25, 2010
City: New York
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


In this claim, Hubert Lewis alleges that "[he] was in Harlem Hospital and . . . was [forced] to [have] surgery . . . in October of 2009." Defendant moves to dismiss the claim on the grounds that: (1) it fails to state a cause of action against the State of New York; (2) it was untimely; (3) it was not properly verified; and (4) it fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of 11 of the Court of Claims Act.

Claimant, who filed no opposition papers, does not dispute defendant's assertion that Harlem Hospital is not a New York State entity, but rather is part of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. 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 New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. Nor does the Court of Claims have jurisdiction over private individuals such as named defendant Dr. Rocmin. See, e.g., Gazquez v Komonoff Geriatric and Rehabilitation Center, Ct Cl, March 14, 2007 (unreported, claim no. 112705, motion no. M-72549, UID #2007-033-235(1) , Lack, J.). Moreover, claimant has failed to make any allegations in his claim which would implicate the State of New York. In sum, this claim fails to state a cause of action against the State of New York and the Court lacks jurisdiction over the named defendants. Accordingly, defendant's remaining arguments need not be reached.

Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions(2) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-78773 be granted and that claim no. 118748 be dismissed.

October 25, 2010

New York, New York

Alan C. Marin

Judge of the Court of Claims

1. This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found on the Court's website:

2. The Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A through D. Claimant filed no opposition papers.