Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim was granted..
|Claimant short name:||MANKO|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||RICHARD E. SISE|
|Claimant's attorney:||NELLA MANKO, PRO SE|
|Defendant's attorney:||HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Lawrence E. Kozar, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||February 18, 2021|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
The following papers were read on defendant's motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211:
1. Notice of Motion filed November 1, 2019;
2. Affirmation of Lawrence E. Kozar affirmed October 31, 2019 with Exhibits A-B annexed;
3. Unsworn statement of Nella Manko filed January 27, 2021 with Exhibits 1A1-1X1, 2A1-2A4, 2B1-2D, 2E, 2E1, 2F, 2F1, 2G, 2G1, 2H, 2H1, 2J, 2K, 2L, 2M, 2N, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 20, A8, A9, A10, A11, A16, A17, A18, A20, A21, A22.
Filed papers: Claim.
Defendant has moved to dismiss this action in which claimant contends that her constitutional right to equal protection under the law was violated when a suit she instituted in Supreme Court, Kings County was dismissed.
As defendant correctly argues "the Court of Claims does not have the authority to review the merits of the [another court's] determination. Moreover, any acts done in the exercise of judicial functions by the ... [j]udge or court personnel are cloaked with immunity and, thus, cannot form the basis for a claim for damages against the State (Morrison-Allen v State of New York, 152 AD3d 509, 510 [2d Dept 2017]). Inasmuch as the claim calls for an examination of the determination by Supreme Court, Kings County to dismiss an action pending there, a decision alleged to have been implemented by a judge and court personnel, the claim is beyond the jurisdiction of this court and should be dismissed.
Defendant has also requested that claimant be enjoined from filing, without leave, further actions in this court based on an allegation that claimant has brought numerous claims and motions challenging the proceedings or outcomes of state court actions. While defendat has shown that a number of other courts have required this claimant to first obtain permission before bringing any further proceeding in their court, defendant has not made the case that such a restriction is warranted here. While the claimant is not unfamiliar to the court, the burden of demonstrating, on this motion, the need for the requested sanction rests with defendant and that burden has not been met.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the claim is dismissed.
February 18, 2021
Albany, New York
RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims