New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
PECORA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-033-387, Claim No. 117379, Motion No. M-77334


Case information

UID: 2010-033-387
Claimant(s): JANET PECORA
Claimant short name: PECORA
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 117379
Motion number(s): M-77334
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: James J. Lack
Claimant's attorney: Genevieve Lane Lopresti, Esq.
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General
By: Kimberly A. Kinirons, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: June 21, 2010
City: Hauppauge
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a claim by Janet Pecora (hereinafter "claimant") for damages due to the alleged violation of her federal constitutional rights by employees of the Town of Oyster Bay, New York. The claim alleges a continuous course of action since October 2002 up to and including the present.

Defendant makes this pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction(1) .

The requirements of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed (Lurie v State of New York, 73 AD2d 1006, aff'd 52 NY2d 849). The purpose of these requirements is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts and prepare a defense.

The establishment of the court system is found in Article VI of the New York State Constitution. Article VI, 7 states that the Supreme Court shall "have general original jurisdiction in law and equity and the appellate jurisdiction herein provided."

The Supreme Court in this State is a court of general original jurisdiction in law and equity (see N. Y. Const., art. VI, 7, subd. a.) and, in conformity with its all inclusive powers, the court is authorized in any action to render such judgment as is appropriate to the proofs received in conformity with the allegations of the pleadings, irrespective of the nature of the relief demanded, subject, of course, in a proper case, to the imposition of such terms as may be necessary to protect the rights of any party.

(Kaminsky v Kahn, 23 AD2d 231, 236).

Separately, the Court of Claims is established by NY Const Art. VI, 9, which states, in relevant part that "[t]he court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine claims against the state or by the state against the claimant or between conflicting claimants as the legislature may provide." The Court of Claims is limited to awarding money damages against the State of New York (Matter of Silverman v Comptroller of State of New York, 40 AD2d 225).

Claimant offers nothing to this Court to aid her position. There is no evidence of any connection between the State of New York and claimant or the Town of Oyster Bay. The only connection proffered by claimant is the summonses she receives state "The People of the State of New York". The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over counties, towns, local municipalities or their employees.

Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

June 21, 2010

Hauppauge, New York

James J. Lack

Judge of the Court of Claims

1. The following papers have been read and considered on defendant's motion: Notice of Motion to Dismiss dated October 16, 2009 and filed October 22, 2009; Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Kimberly A. Kinirons, Esq. with annexed Exhibit A dated October 16, 2009 and filed October 22, 2009; Affirmation in Opposition of Genevieve Lane Lopresti, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A-B dated February 3, 2010 and filed February 9, 2010.