SERRANO v. STATE (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a claim to recover damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8–b, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (David A. Weinstein, J.), dated May 28, 2021.  The order denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

By judgment rendered October 30, 2013, the claimant was convicted of attempted assault in the first degree in connection with a stabbing incident that occurred outside a Brooklyn nightclub in September 2012.  The judgment was reversed by this Court on the ground that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Serrano, 157 A.D.3d 971, 972, 69 N.Y.S.3d 879).

The claimant commenced this claim against the defendant, State of New York, to recover damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8–b.  Following discovery, the claimant moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.  The State opposed the motion.  In an order dated May 28, 2021, the Court of Claims denied the claimant's motion.  The claimant appeals.

“Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8–b, any person convicted and subsequently imprisoned for one or more felonies or misdemeanors may present a claim against the State, provided, inter alia, that the claimant proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she ‘did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument’ ” (Vasquez v. State of New York, 263 A.D.2d 539, 539, 693 N.Y.S.2d 220, quoting Court of Claims Act § 8–b[5][c];  see Reed v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 571 N.Y.S.2d 195, 574 N.E.2d 433;  Turner v. State of New York, 50 A.D.3d 890, 893, 854 N.Y.S.2d 778).  “The requirements imposed by Court of Claims Act § 8–b are to be strictly construed” (Vasquez v. State of New York, 263 A.D.2d at 539, 693 N.Y.S.2d 220;  see Reed v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d at 11, 571 N.Y.S.2d 195, 574 N.E.2d 433;  David W. v. State of New York, 27 A.D.3d 111, 116, 808 N.Y.S.2d 741).

“[T]he linchpin of the statute is innocence” (Ivey v. State of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 474, 479, 591 N.Y.S.2d 969, 606 N.E.2d 1360 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “[P]utting the burden of proof on claimant places one in a difficult position of proving a negative” (Reed v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d at 10, 571 N.Y.S.2d 195, 574 N.E.2d 433 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see David W. v. State of New York, 27 A.D.3d at 116, 808 N.Y.S.2d 741).  “Thus, to meet [his or] her burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence of [his or] her innocence, claimant had to demonstrate that the evidence makes it highly probable that what [he or she] claims is what actually happened with said evidence being neither equivocal nor open to opposing presumptions” (Salce v. State of New York, 184 A.D.3d 1037, 1039, 126 N.Y.S.3d 780 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Reed v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d at 10, 571 N.Y.S.2d 195, 574 N.E.2d 433;  Alexandre v. State of New York, 168 A.D.2d 472, 472, 563 N.Y.S.2d 635).  Moreover, “[w]here credibility determinations are required, summary judgment must be denied” (Quino v. Heburechnaya I.S., Inc., 230 A.D.3d 601, 604, 217 N.Y.S.3d 596 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon, 171 A.D.3d 197, 201, 97 N.Y.S.3d 286).

Here, the Court of Claims properly denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability because he failed to establish, prima facie, that he was innocent of the crime by clear and convincing evidence (see Reed v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d at 11, 571 N.Y.S.2d 195, 574 N.E.2d 433;  Turner v. State of New York, 50 A.D.3d at 893, 854 N.Y.S.2d 778;  Vasquez v. State of New York, 263 A.D.2d at 539, 693 N.Y.S.2d 220).  The proof the claimant submitted, being equivocal and open to opposing inferences, did not meet his burden of proof (see Reed v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d at 10, 571 N.Y.S.2d 195, 574 N.E.2d 433;  Salce v. State of New York, 184 A.D.3d at 1039, 126 N.Y.S.3d 780;  Alexandre v. State of New York, 168 A.D.2d at 472, 563 N.Y.S.2d 635).

The claimant's remaining contention is without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.