You are here: / Court of Claims
, ,

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

 

,

In Court of Claims Case, Inability to Prove State Was Served with Notice of Claim Required Dismissal

In affirming the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because claimant was unable to demonstrate the state was properly served, the Third Department explained the relevant law as follows:

“A claimant seeking to recover damages  for personal injuries caused by  the negligence . . . of an  officer or employee  of [defendant] must  file and  serve a claim or, alternatively, a notice of intention to file such a claim, upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the accrual thereof”….  Both filing with the court and service upon the Attorney General must take place within the relevant statutory period … and, as suits against defendant are permitted only by virtue of its waiver of sovereign immunity and  are in derogation of the common law, “the failure to strictly comply with the filing or service provisions of the Court of Claims Act divests the court of subject matter jurisdiction”….   Notably, “a defect in subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time  on appeal, because it relates to the competence of the court to consider [the] matter”… .and, therefore, such defect “cannot be overlooked or remedied by either waiver or estoppel” … .  Caci v State of New York, 515844, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

BICYCLES

, , ,

Notice of Claim (Pursuant to Court of Claims Act) Not Specific Enough

The Third Department upheld the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because the notice of claim was not specific enough.  In describing the statutory criteria, the Third Department wrote:

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must set forth the nature of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the damages or injuries and  the total sum  claimed. “Because suits against [defendant] are allowed only by [defendant’s] waiver of sovereign immunity and  in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed”….   Although “absolute exactness” is not required…, the claim must “‘provide a  sufficiently detailed  description  of  the  particulars of the claim to enable [defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and  extent of its liability'” … .  Morra v State of New York, 515751, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, EMPLOYEE

, ,

Elements of Retaliatory Termination Described

The Second Department explained the elements of retaliatory termination as follows:

Pursuant to Executive Law § 296, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee because he or she opposed statutorily forbidden discriminatory practices …. To make a prima facie showing of retaliation under Executive Law § 296, a claimant is required to show that (1) the claimant was engaged in protected activity, (2) the claimant’s employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) the claimant suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity, and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action …. Once this initial showing is made, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its actions. Assuming the defendant meets this burden, the claimant would then have the obligation to show that the reasons put forth were merely a pretext … .  Adeniran v State of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03441, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

, ,

2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of Control of Her Vehicle

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ determination that a 21/2 inch drop off in the shoulder of a road was not the proximate cause of a driver’s losing control of her vehicle.  The doctrine of “qualified immunity” in connection with road defects is explained. Marrow… v State…, CA 12-00974, 241, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

Hearsay About Cause of Fall Included in Hospital Report Should Not Have Been Presented to the Jury

In reversing a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, the First Department held that a hearsay statement about the cause of the plaintiff’s fall, contained in a hospital report, should not have been presented to the jury:

Generally, admissions not germane to the treatment or diagnosis of a plaintiff’s injuries are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … . A hearsay entry in a hospital record as to the cause of an injury may be admissible at trial even if not germane to diagnosis, if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken at trial. However, there must be evidence that connects the party to the entry … .

…[P]laintiff testified that she slipped on a metal bracket protruding from a subway step. The hospital record indicating that she slipped on wet ground should not have been presented to the jury since there was no proper foundation for its admission, inasmuch as it was unclear whether plaintiff was the source of that information … . Indeed, plaintiff testified that she did not tell the orthopedic surgeon that she slipped on a wet surface. The admission of the hospital record thus was not harmless error since it went to the crux of plaintiff’s allegations. [Defendant’s] primary defense was that plaintiff slipped on wet ground, and not from its negligence … .  Grant v New York City Tr Auth, 3013 NY Slip Op 02318, 9211, 305841/08, 1st Dept 4-4-13

SLIP AND FALL

, , ,

1983 Action Against Department of Corrections Is Not Brought in the Court of Claims

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice Garry, reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a 1983 action against employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision challenging a urinalysis report:

Supreme Court found that it lacked jurisdiction based upon Correction Law § 24, which requires that actions alleging negligence by state correction officers be commenced in the Court of Claims; however, it has been established that this provision may not be applied to bar actions brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 … . Carrington v Moore, 513818, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

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