Mensah v Polytechnic Univ.

Mensah v Polytechnic Univ. 2009 NY Slip Op 08869 [68 AD3d 411] December 1, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Seth A. Mensah, Appellant,
v
Polytechnic University et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

—[*1] Seth A. Mensah, appellant pro se.

Bivona & Cohen, P.C., New York (Ian H. Kaufman of counsel), for Polytechnic University, respondent.

Freeman Lewis LLP, New York (Alexander Linzer of counsel), for Belcan Corporation, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered December 4, 2008, which denied plaintiff's motion for an order directing defendant Polytechnic University to grant him a bachelor of science degree in aerospace and mechanical engineering and a doctorate degree in aerospace engineering, and granted Polytechnic's and defendant Belcan Corporation's cross motions to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court lacked personal jurisdiction of Polytechnic and Belcan because plaintiff pro se served them by mail (CPLR 311 [a]). In addition, the complaint, which seeks compensation for the appropriation of a design for a "submarine spaceship," fails to state a cause of action against Belcan because it does not indicate Belcan's role in either the design or the manufacture of any submarine spaceship or any connection between Belcan and plaintiff's alleged damages. The complaint also fails to state a cause of action against Polytechnic because plaintiff's factual [*2]allegations pertaining to Polytechnic are "either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence" (Kliebert v McKoan, 228 AD2d 232, 232 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 802 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.