CAPPETTA v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Zainab Chaudhry, J.), entered September 22, 2023, which granted a motion by defendant State of New York to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, proceeding pro se, filed a claim against multiple defendants – including several individually named persons, members of the judiciary, a private university, and county and state agencies and certain of their employees, among others – alleging civil, criminal and constitutional rights violations in relation to various Family Court orders from 2006 through 2021 concerning the custody of his children, child support payments and the termination of his parental rights, among other proceedings.  In lieu of answering, defendant State of New York (hereinafter defendant) moved to dismiss the claim asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, improper service, judicial immunity and failure to state a cause of action.  The Court of Claims agreed and dismissed the claim, and this appeal ensued.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, fixed by the N.Y. Constitution and by statute, is limited to claims “against the State itself, or actions naming State agencies or officials as defendants, where the action is, in reality, one against the State – i.e., where the State is the real party in interest” (Morell v. Balasubramanian, 70 N.Y.2d 297, 301, 520 N.Y.S.2d 530, 514 N.E.2d 1101 [1987];  see N.Y. Const, art VI, § 9;  Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9;  Cumberland v. State of New York, 217 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 190 N.Y.S.3d 499 [3d Dept. 2023]).  As so limited, the court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against individual persons (see Morell v. Balasubramanian, 70 N.Y.2d at 300–301, 520 N.Y.S.2d 530, 514 N.E.2d 1101;  Smith v. State of New York, 72 A.D.2d 937, 938, 422 N.Y.S.2d 221 [4th Dept. 1979]), a county and its agencies or its employees (see Fisher v. State of New York, 10 N.Y.2d 60, 61–62, 217 N.Y.S.2d 52, 176 N.E.2d 72 [1961];  Whitmore v. State of New York, 55 A.D.2d 745, 746, 389 N.Y.S.2d 443 [3d Dept. 1976], lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 810, 399 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 369 N.E.2d 774 [1977];  Fishbein v. State of New York, 282 App.Div. 600, 602–603, 125 N.Y.S.2d 845 [3d Dept. 1953]), or private colleges (see generally State Univ. of N.Y. v. Syracuse Univ., 285 App.Div. 59, 61–62, 135 N.Y.S.2d 539 [3d Dept. 1954]).  Accordingly, the claim was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as against the named individual persons, Le Moyne College, and various Oswego County agencies and District Attorney.

As to the remaining defendants, we likewise agree that the claim was improperly served and must, as a result, be dismissed.  Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i), a notice of claim must be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested (see Trimble v. State of New York, 142 A.D.3d 1256, 1256, 37 N.Y.S.3d 922 [3d Dept. 2016], appeal dismissed & lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1181, 49 N.Y.S.3d 373, 71 N.E.3d 961 [2017]).  Here, although the mailing envelope used by claimant indicates the use of certified mail, nothing in the record reflects that a return receipt was requested and, thus, the manner of service did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements.  As this “failure divests the court of subject matter jurisdiction, ․ dismissal of the claim was required” (Miranda v. State of New York, 113 A.D.3d 943, 943–944, 978 N.Y.S.2d 463 [3d Dept. 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Court of Claims Act § 11[a][i];  Trimble v. State of New York, 142 A.D.3d at 1256, 37 N.Y.S.3d 922).  Claimant's contention that the State received actual notice of the claim such that dismissal is unnecessary is without merit, as “notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot serve to bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court,” and the State timely raised this defect (Turley v. State of New York, 279 A.D.2d 819, 819, 719 N.Y.S.2d 380 [3d Dept. 2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 708, 725 N.Y.S.2d 638, 749 N.E.2d 207 [2001]).  Accordingly, we need not reach the alternative grounds for dismissal advanced by defendant.

We have considered claimant's remaining contentions and, to the extent not expressly addressed herein, have found them lacking in merit.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Egan Jr., J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Ceresia and Mackey, JJ., concur.