Claim fails to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), not specific enough.
|Claimant short name:||YEFIMOVA|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||TRUSTCO BANK, JONATHAN B. NELSON, ADDRESS: 555 THEODORE FREMD AV. RYE, NEW YORK 10580|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Claimant's attorney:||LYUBOV YEFIMOVA
|Defendant's attorney:||HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Acting Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||May 22, 2018|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on the State's unopposed motion to dismiss Claim No. 131091:
Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits.........................1
Letters on Behalf of Trustco Bank and Jonathan B. Nelson Dated March 23, 2018 and May 1, 2018.......................................................................................................2
The State brings this pre-answer motion to dismiss Claim No. 131091 which names Trustco Bank and Jonathan B. Nelson as defendants. The claim does not name the State as a defendant. The named defendants join in the State's motion seeking dismissal of the claim.
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and can hear only claims against the State and certain public authorities (NY Const, art VI; Court of Claims Act § 9). This Court does not have jurisdiction over the named defendants. Accordingly, the claim warrants dismissal.
Additionally, Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) provides in pertinent part that "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained." The State's waiver of immunity from suits for money damages is contingent upon claimant's compliance with the specifications set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206-207 ). Moreover, "[t]he Court of Claims Act does not require the State to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege" (id. at 208).
In this matter, the Court is mindful that claimant is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the Court has given the claim a most liberal reading. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the claim fails to comply with the legislatively mandated pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281  ["nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary"]). The claim fails to state a claim with sufficient particularity and does not name a defendant over which this Court has jurisdiction (see Lepkowski, 1 NY3d at 207).
Accordingly, the unopposed motion to dismiss Claim No. 131091 is hereby GRANTED.
May 22, 2018
White Plains, New York
Judge of the Court of Claims