New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
HOBSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-033-403, Claim No. 118140, Motion No. M-78158


Case information

UID: 2010-033-403
Claimant(s): STEVE HOBSON
Claimant short name: HOBSON
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 118140
Motion number(s): M-78158
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: James J. Lack
Claimant's attorney: Steve Hobson, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General
By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: September 24, 2010
City: Hauppauge
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a claim by Steve Hobson (hereinafter "claimant") for injuries due to the actions of employees of the State of New York (hereinafter "defendant"). The alleged incidents occurred between August 21, 2009 and October 5, 2009, at the Eastern Correctional Facility in Napanoch, New York.

Claimant alleges he was subjected to strip searches between the dates alleged. Defendant moves to dismiss the claim prior to filing its answer(1)

. Defendant argues the claim is not pled with sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act 11(b). In addition, defendant argues the strip searches of claimant were done in accordance with a Department of Correctional Services (hereinafter "DOCS") directive.

In opposition to the motion, claimant argues the claim meets the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act 11(b) and the strip searches were excessive and in violation of the DOCS directive.

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. It is well settled that if the filing is not timely then the claim is subject to dismissal (Greenspan Bros. v State of New York, 122 AD2d 249).

The Court finds the claim is sufficiently pled to give defendant notice of the occurrences and an opportunity to investigate. The remainder of defendant's motion is premature. Claimant alleges the strip searches were conducted in violation of the DOCS directive. Thus, claimant must be given an opportunity to conduct discovery to prove his case.

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

September 24, 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 dated April 16, 2010 and filed April 16, 2010; Affirmation in Support of Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq. with annexed Exhibit A dated April 16, 2010 and filed April 16, 2010; Reply to Affirmation of Steve Hobson with annexed Exhibits dated April 26, 2010 and filed April 28, 2010.