Johnson v State of New York

[*1] Johnson v State of New York 2023 NY Slip Op 51361(U) Decided on September 5, 2023 Court Of Claims Marnin, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 5, 2023
Court of Claims

Leroy Johnson, Claimant,

against

State of New York, Defendant.



Claim No. 138492


For Claimant:
LEROY JOHNSON, PRO SE

For Defendant:
LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Dorothy M. Keogh, Assistant Attorney General
Seth M. Marnin, J.

Before the Court is defendant's unopposed [FN1] motion to dismiss claimant's claim on the grounds that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction per CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Specifically, defendant contends that claimant failed to meet the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

On November 30, 2022, claimant timely filed a claim with the Clerk of the Court of Claims, which he served upon the Office of Attorney General on December 2, 2022. The claim alleged that on October 3, 2022, at approximately 2:20 p.m. in the Sing Sing A-Block mess hall, Correction Officer Siversten used excessive force and was deliberately indifferent to claimant's mental health when he attempted to strike the claimant with a baton and then pepper sprayed him for removing two apples from the mess hall. Claimant stated that as a result of the correction officer's actions he was unable to breathe and see and stated that he still endures pain in his eyes as a result of the attack. The claim asserted that the correction officer violated numerous rules [*2]and regulations including 9 NYCRR §§ 7634.3 and 7634.4. Claimant requested one million dollars in damages.

Defendant contends in its motion papers that claimant failed to allege a specific injury or items of damages. Although the defendant accurately recites the general principles of the governing law, it is in the analysis that the Court disagrees.

The statutory requirements for a claim against the State are set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). This section "places five specific substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereign immunity by requiring the claim to specify (1) 'the nature of [the claim]'; (2) 'the time when it arose'; (3) the 'place where' it arose; (4) 'the items of damages or injuries claimed to have been sustained'; and (5) 'the total sum claimed.' " (Chmielewski v State of New York, 217 AD3d 1583, 1583-1584 [4th Dept 2023] quoting Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003].) The purpose of the substantive pleading requirements is to provide defendant with sufficient detailed information to enable it to timely investigate and appraise whether and to what extent it is liable. (Id.) While the State is not required "to ferret out or assemble information that section 11(b) obligates the claimant to allege" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 208), "absolute exactness is not required." (Kimball Brooklands Corp. v State of New York, 180 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2d Dept 2020] citing Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115, 1115 [3d Dept 2013].)

Contrary to defendant's assertion, the allegations, albeit brief, sufficiently meet the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Claimant pleaded a straightforward claim for injuries sustained as a result of being threatened with a baton and pepper sprayed by a correction officer at Sing Sing. Claimant cited specific injuries to his eyes and his breathing ("claimant was unable to breathe and see" and "still endure[s] pain in his eyes") and identified a specific date, approximate time, and specific location where the alleged incident transpired (October 3, 2022 at approximately 2:20 p.m. in A-Block mess hall) and named the correction officer (C.O. Siversten) who allegedly engaged in the conduct that caused the harm to claimant (pepper spraying and "swinging his baton at claimant"). The allegations are "sufficiently specific and limiting to afford defendant the benefits of the pleading requirement." (Vassenelli v State of New York, UID No. 2019-028-575 [Ct Cl, Sise, P. J., Sept. 18, 2019]; see Donahue v State of New York, 174 AD3d 1549 [4th Dept 2019] [claim alleging injuries to the shoulder, bicep, and elbow].)

Defendant does not assert that it has been unable to investigate claimant's allegations or that it was otherwise prejudiced by the lack of detail in the claim. (Brown v State of New York, UID No. 2021-058-048 [Ct Cl, Leahy-Scott, J., Oct. 12, 2021].) Rather, defendant's argument is narrowly focused upon a single paragraph of the claim while seemingly ignoring the remaining allegations asserted in the claim. (See affirmation of defendant's counsel, exhibit A, claim ¶ 11.)

As the Court finds that the claim satisfies the pleading requirements of the Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), it is:

ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (M-98926) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant is directed to serve and file an answer to the claim within 30 days of the date of filing of this decision and order.

New York, New York
September 5, 2023
SETH M. MARNIN
Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were considered on defendant's motion to dismiss (M-98926):

1. Claim No. 138492, filed on November 3, 2022;

2. Notice of motion to dismiss, filed on December 30, 2022; and

3. Affirmation in support by Dorothy M. Keogh, affirmed on December 30, 2022.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:The Court received a letter from claimant on January 19, 2023, that sought an adjournment to afford him time to respond to the motion, which was granted. However, the Clerk of the Court of Claims has no record of receiving a response. Nevertheless, claimant sent four additional letters between March 2023 and June 2023 to keep the Court abreast of his current address and to inquire about the status of his claim. Upon review of the letters, it is evident that he is intent on prosecuting his claim.