You are here: / Court of Claims
, ,

Most of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action Were Allegations Concerning the Conduct of a State Employee in His Official Capacity—Therefore, Those Causes of Action Were Actually Against the State and Could Only Be Heard in the Court of Claims/Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained

The Second Department upheld the dismissal of several causes of action (brought in Supreme Court) which were determined to constitute actions against the state because they were directed at the official conduct of an individual employed by the state. Actions against the state can be heard only in the Court of Claims. The suit was brought by a doctor employed by the SUNY Downstate Medical Center and alleged breach of contract, wrongful termination of employment, promissory estoppel, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Second Department concluded that only defamation should survive because that cause of action was against plaintiff’s boss, Dr. Abulafia, in his individual, not official, capacity.  The intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action, which was also against Dr. Abulafia in his individual capacity, was dismissed because it was not sufficiently alleged:

“The Court of Claims has limited jurisdiction to hear actions against the State itself, or actions naming State agencies or officials as defendants, where the action is, in reality, one against the State—i.e., where the State is the real party in interest” … . Generally, “[t]he Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for money damages against State agencies, departments, and employees acting in their official capacity in the exercise of governmental functions” … . “Where, however, the suit against the State agent or officer is in tort for damages arising from the breach of a duty owed individually by such agent or officer directly to the injured party, the State is not the real party in interest—even though it could be held secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract, wrongful termination of employment, and promissory estoppel insofar as asserted against Abulafia, correctly concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain those cases of action insofar as asserted against Abulafia, as those causes of action arose from acts performed, and determinations made, by Abulafia as a State employee acting in his official capacity… . * * *

“In order to state a cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the complaint must allege conduct that was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency . . . and [was] utterly intolerable in a civilized community'” … . Even accepting as true the allegations in the complaint regarding Abulafia’s conduct, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference …, Abulafia’s conduct was not “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree” as to qualify as intentional infliction of emotional distress … .  Borawski v Abulafia, 2014 NY Slip Op 03221, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

Claimant’s Motion to File a Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied—Application of Statutory Factors Explained

The Second Department determined claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied. Claimant had other remedies available and the claims were deemed to be without merit. The statutory factors (Court of Claims Act 10(6)) to be weighed are: “… whether the delay in filing was excusable; whether the State had notice of essential facts constituting the claim; whether the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the State is prejudiced; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy … . ‘No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative’…”. Borawski v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03795, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

,

Consequential Damages Related to a Parcel of Land Sold Prior to the Taking Should Not Have Been Granted by the Court of Claims

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fahey, determined the Court of Claims should not have awarded consequential damages for a parcel of land which was sold prior to the taking.  As the court described the issue:

Here we address the issue whether consequential damages may be awarded when the real property in question was sold months before the taking of other real property that affects the land in question. Claimants commenced this proceeding seeking damages for the diminished value of approximately 16 acres of what claimants characterized as “remaining land” following defendant’s taking of approximately 1.22 acres of land from what was claimants’ 17.3-acre parcel. Following a trial, the Court of Claims awarded claimants consequential damages with respect to what the court concluded was 12.835 acres of that parcel. Included in the 12.835 acres of land for which the court awarded consequential damages were 4.63 acres of land sold by claimants to Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive Parcel) for $1,800,000. That sale occurred in November 2005, i.e., before the taking of the aforementioned 1.22 acres of land in July 2006. Defendant now contends that the award of consequential damages was excessive inasmuch as the court erroneously awarded consequential damages for the Progressive Parcel. We agree. Rose Park Place Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03070, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

Criteria for Allowing Late Claim Described

The Second Department determined the Court of Claims should have granted claimant’s request to file a late claim:

Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim … . “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … .

Here, the Court of Claims improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the claimants’ motion which was for leave to file a late claim on behalf of the claimant … . It is undisputed that the State received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claimant[‘s] …  accident, and there is no indication that the State would suffer substantial prejudice if the claimants were permitted to file a late claim … . Furthermore, notwithstanding the existence of a factual issue as to which governmental entity bears responsibility for maintenance of the roadway and guardrail where the accident occurred, the claimants’ submissions were sufficient, at this point, to demonstrate that there appears to be merit to their claim within the meaning of Court of Claims Act § 10(6) … . Tucholski v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07494, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

State’s Placement of a Stop Sign and the Resulting Difficulty in Seeing Oncoming Traffic was a Concurrent Cause of the Accident which Was Not Superseded by the Negligence of the Drivers

The Fourth Department determined the state was properly held partially liable for an accident at an intersection.  Plaintiff was a passenger in a car (driven by Kiczewski) which, after stopping, entered an intersection where it was struck by a truck (driven by Martin) with the right of way.  Plaintiff alleged the placement of the stop sign (by the state) made it difficult to see oncoming traffic:

We reject the State’s contention that claimants failed to meet their burden of establishing that its negligence was a proximate cause of claimant’s injuries. “In order to prevail at trial in a negligence case, a [claimant] . . . is not required to exclude every other possible cause, but need only offer evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred” …. . Here, based on our review of the record, we conclude that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court’s determination that the State’s failure to remedy a known dangerous condition at the intersection was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident … .

Although it is true, as the State contends, that the accident was caused primarily by the negligence of Kiczewski, who failed to yield the right-of-way to the truck, it is well settled that there may be more than one proximate cause of the accident …, and it cannot be said on this record that Kiczewski’s negligence, or that of Martin, was a superseding cause of the accident that severed any causal connection between claimant’s injuries and the State’s negligence … . Because claimants proved that the State’s negligence “increased the likelihood of an accident,” we conclude that the court properly determined that the State’s negligence was a “concurring cause” of the accident … . Przesiek v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 04327, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

Requirements for Notice of Intent Met Despite Flaws in Document

The Fourth Department determined a flawed document which followed the format of a Notice of Claim under the General Municipal Law met the requirements for a Notice of Intent under the Court of Claims Act:

Here, we conclude that the document is a proper notice of intent. We agree with defendant that the document “had all the hallmarks of a notice of claim against a municipality,” rather than a notice of intent against the State, including the title of the document, the stated venue as “Supreme Court,” the references to the General Municipal Law, and the naming of the County of Orleans as a “respondent.” Nevertheless, the document names the State as a “respondent” and alleges that the premises where claimant fell were owned by the State, and claimant served the document on the Attorney General. In addition, we conclude that the mistake in naming the place where the claim arose as the “Orleans County Correctional Facility” (emphasis added) does not require dismissal of the claim. Claimant provided the proper address where the claim arose, which showed that her fall occurred at the Orleans Correctional Facility, and not at the Orleans County Jail, which is located on a different street.With regard to the requisite specificity as to the place where the claim arose, we note that ” [w]hat is required is not absolute exactness, but simply a statement made with sufficient definiteness to enable [defendant] to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances’ ” …. .  Mosley v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03054, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

, ,

Disclosure of Appraisal Documents Not Entitled to Conditional Immunity Even If Prepared Solely for Litigation/No Other Way for Claimants to Obtain Relevant Evidence

In a matter related to the taking of property for the construction of a highway, the Third Department determined the claimants were entitled to an appraisal done by the defendants, even if the documents were prepared solely in anticipation of litigation.  The claimants demonstrated that they had no other avenue to obtain the evidence relevant to their claims:

Even if the documents were prepared solely in anticipation of litigation, claimants demonstrated that the conditional immunity should not prevent disclosure because they have a substantial need and an inability to otherwise obtain the documents.  … The Court of Claims … acknowledged that the subpoenaed documents were relevant to the claim for property damage, to prove the condition of the property immediately before the construction.  Thus, even if the documents were drafted solely for litigation purposes, the appraisal and supporting documents would be subject to disclosure based on claimants’ substantial need and their lack of another source for that proof (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). Lerner v State of New York, 516774, 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

, , , ,

Imprisonment and Prosecution Based Upon the Violation of an Administratively Imposed Period of Post Release Supervision Gave Rise to Valid False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the State

In a lengthy and thorough opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined that the claimant, who was imprisoned and prosecuted based upon an administratively imposed “post release supervision” (PRS) violation, was entitled to summary judgment on his false imprisonment cause of action and had stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  The claimant was held in custody and prosecuted after the Court of Appeals had ruled that only the sentencing court can impose a term of post release supervision (Garner v NYS Dept of Correctional Services, 10 NY3d 358 [2008]):

…[C]aimant sufficiently alleged that his confinement was not privileged and it was defendant’s burden to establish that its confinement of claimant after Garner was privileged; defendant failed in the Court of Claims to produce a Division of Parole arrest warrant or a court order so as to demonstrate their validity or that the arrest or confinement of claimant was privileged … .   Further, to clarify, claimant does not challenge his arrest prior to Garner but, rather, premises his claims on his continued detention and reincarceration – after Garner – for a parole violation based upon an administrativelyimposed PRS term that Garner clearly held was invalid, i.e., he raises a claim for false imprisonment and not for false arrest. * * *

…[D]efendant does not have immunity for the actions of its parole officials.  To be sure, inherently discretionary parole decisions of government officials have been recognized to be quasi-judicial decisions entitled to absolute immunity … .  “Where, however, the official has stepped outside the scope of his [or her] authority and acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or without a colorable claim of authority, there is plainly no entitlement to absolute immunity, even if the underlying acts are . . . quasi-judicial in nature” … .  That is, “[t]here is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter.  The former is privileged, the latter is not”… . * * *

We similarly conclude that claimant stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  To make out a claim for malicious prosecution, claimant must establish: “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the [claimant], (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” …. .  … On the second prong, claimant need not “demonstrate innocence” of the parole violation in order to satisfy that favorable termination prong; rather, claimant can satisfy it by showing that “there can be no further prosecution of the [alleged parole violation]” … .  We believe it self evident, under the facts here and despite the lack of state law on point, that defendant could not, after Sparber and Garner, ever lawfully prosecute claimant on a parole violation that occurred before those decisions, where the PRS in effect at the time of the alleged violation was imposed by DOCS and was, as such, a nullity… Moulton v State of New York, 515096, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

, ,

Supreme Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction In an Action Seeking Compensation for an Alleged Unconstitutional Taking of Land Based Upon the Denial of a Subdivision Application—the Court of Claims Has Exclusive Jurisdiction

The plaintiff landowner wished to subdivide a 16 acre parcel and build homes with septic systems.  The land is in a watershed.  The town rejected the subdivision because the septic systems would violate the watershed regulations. The plaintiff then sued in Supreme Court seeking $1,000,000 as compensation for the alleged unconstitutional taking of his property.  In concluding that Supreme Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, the Second Department wrote:

The plaintiff acknowledges that the instant action for a judgment declaring an unconstitutional taking is a precursor to the commencement of an action to recover damages in the Court of Claims based on that taking. The plaintiff, in effect, seeks to bifurcate its claim: to establish the State’s liability in the Supreme Court, and then to establish damages in the Court of Claims. The State Constitution, however, vests the Court of Claims with exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the State for appropriation of real property (see NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act § 9[2]). The plaintiff’s action runs afoul of this exclusive grant. Therefore, we agree with the Supreme Court that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim… . Monroe Equities LLC v New York State, 2013 NY Slip Op 07715, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

Failure to Serve Claim by Certified Mail Deprived Court of Claims of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ dismissal of an action for failure to comply with the statutory service-of-claim-by-certified-mail requirement.  The court noted that the court never gained subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, the CPLR 3211 (e) waiver provision, which addressed personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction, did not apply:

…[C]laimants served their claim on the Attorney General by regular mail instead of by certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11. Defendant’s answer raised the defense that the court lacked, inter alia, subject matter jurisdiction based on claimants’ improper service, and defendant later moved to dismiss the claim on that ground.  Claimants opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order deeming the service corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001. The court granted defendant’s motion and denied claimants’ cross motion, and we now affirm.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) provides that a party seeking to file a claim against the State of New York must serve a copy of the claim upon the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested.  It is well settled that “nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary” … .  Inasmuch as the claim herein was served by regular mail, the court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim … . Contrary to claimants’ contention, defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of improper service, made approximately 20 months after service of its answer, was not precluded by the 60-day waiver provision of CPLR 3211 (e).  The failure to comply with the service requirements in the Court of Claims Act “result[s] not in a failure of personal jurisdiction, . . . but in a failure of subject matter jurisdiction[,] which may not be waived”… . Zoeckler…, v State of New York, 883, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy