|Claimant(s):||PATRICIA ANDUIZA AND FRANK ANDUIZA|
|Claimant short name:|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :||The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only proper defendant, the State of New York.|
|Judge:||STEPHEN J. LYNCH|
|Claimant's attorney:||Siegel & Coonerty, LLP
|Defendant's attorney:||Hon. Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General
By: Ross N. Herman, Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||November 19, 2018|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
The claim herein alleges negligence, medical malpractice and a lack of informed consent regarding treatment of claimant Patricia Anduiza at Stony Brook Southampton Hospital on August 21, 2016. Defendant now moves, without opposition, to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action.
As evidenced by the affidavit dated September 13, 2018, and the exhibit thereto, of Ernest Baptiste, the Chief Operating Officer of Stony Brook University Hospital (SBUH), the State of New York acquired Southampton Hospital on August 1, 2017. Prior to that date neither SBUH nor the State of New York had any connection with Southampton Hospital which would enable liability to attach for treatment rendered at Southampton Hospital.
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction, having authority to hear only claims specifically authorized by statute against the State of New York for money damages (Court of Claims Act §§ 8 and 9). Here, claimant's allegedly negligent treatment at Stony Brook Southampton Hospital occurred almost a year before defendant purchased the hospital. Her treatment was thus at a hospital which was not State-owned, operated or maintained and the Court has no jurisdiction over this claim (see Lewis v State of New York, UID No. 2010-016-063 [Ct Cl, Marin, J., Oct. 25, 2010]).
Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
November 19, 2018
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss:
1. Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support with Exhibits.