| Morra v State of New York |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04081 [107 AD3d 1115] |
| June 6, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Gregory Morra, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered January25, 2012, which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss theclaim.
In February 2010, claimant filed a claim alleging, as relevant here, that he hadsuffered injury and harm arising from defendant's failure to properly supervise a StatePolice investigator in connection with a criminal prosecution of claimant, despite the factthat defendant "knew or should have known of the investigator's past bad investigations,wrongful arrests and improper use of his position."[FN1] Claimant moved for an order to compel an in camera inspection and disclosure of theinvestigator's personnel records. Defendant opposed that motion, and cross-movedpursuant to CPLR 3211 and/or 3212 for an order dismissing the claim, alleging that thenotice of claim was insufficiently detailed to comply with the pleading requirements ofCourt of Claims Act § 11 (b), among other things. The Court of Claims granteddefendant's cross motion [*2]and dismissed the claim asjurisdictionally defective. Claimant appeals.[FN2]
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must set forth the nature ofthe claim, the time when and place where it arose, the damages or injuries and the totalsum claimed. "Because suits against [defendant] are allowed only by [defendant's] waiverof sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirementsconditioning suit must be strictly construed" (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280 [2007][internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Lepkowski v State of NewYork, 1 NY3d 201, 206-207 [2003]; Lichtenstein v State of New York,93 NY2d 911, 912-913 [1999]). Although "absolute exactness" is not required(Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 [1980]), 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'" (Robin BB. v State of NewYork, 56 AD3d 932, 932-933 [2008], quoting Sinski v State of NewYork, 265 AD2d 319, 319 [1999]). However, defendant is not required "to ferret outor assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege"(Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 208). Failure to abide by thesepleading requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of theclaim, even though this may be a harsh result (see Kolnacki v State of New York,8 NY3d at 281; Dinerman vNYS Lottery, 69 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 911[2010]).
Here, we agree with the Court of Claims that claimant's allegations are notspecifically detailed enough to satisfy the pleading requirements. The claim omitscompletely any facts giving rise to or regarding the nature of the criminal charges thatwere brought against claimant, or specific facts regarding the State Police investigator'sconduct. The time stated encompasses a two-year period beginning in "October and/orNovember, 2006" through "October, November and December, 2008." The generallocation as to where the claim allegedly arose—"Albany and Schoharie countiesand in the areas surrounding in the State of New York"—encompasses at least ninecounties and does not provide any specific location where any of the allegedly improperconduct occurred. As claimant's "allegations fall short of satisfying the pleadingrequirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b)" (Robin BB. v State of NewYork, 56 AD3d at 933), the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim.
In light of this determination, we do not address claimant's remaining contentionsregarding either the merits of his claim or his motion to compel disclosure of theinvestigator's personnel records (see e.g. Young v State of New York [Univ. Hosp. ofBrooklyn-Downstate Med. Ctr.], 82 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2011]; Triani v State of New York, 44AD3d 1032, 1033 [2007]).
Rose, J.P., Lahtinen and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote 1: Although not containedwithin the claim, other documents in the record set forth the initial basis for theinvestigation and the resulting charges; claimant was acquitted of all charges following ajury trial in the Richmondville Town Court.
Footnote 2: The claim containedadditional causes of action for libel, defamation, slander and false arrest, but claimantapparently withdrew those claims prior to entry of the order, leaving only claims formalicious prosecution and negligent supervision. Claimant makes no argument on appealregarding his claim for malicious prosecution, and we deem it to be abandoned (see Costa v Callahan, 41 AD3d1111, 1117 [2007]).