Alam v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2020–07243,Claim No. 134211 |
| Citation | 212 A.D.3d 697,181 N.Y.S.3d 629 |
| Parties | Mansoor ALAM, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
212 A.D.3d 697
181 N.Y.S.3d 629
Mansoor ALAM, appellant,
v.
STATE of New York, respondent.
2020–07243
Claim No. 134211
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—December 12, 2022
January 18, 2023
Mansoor Alam, Jamaica, NY, appellant pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, WILLIAM G. FORD, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Gina M. Lopez–Summa, J.), dated May 12, 2020. The order granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 to dismiss the claim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In 2012, the claimant's then wife commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief against him in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. In May 2017, after conducting a nonjury trial, the court issued an amended judgment of divorce. The claimant appealed to this Court from certain portions of the amended judgment of divorce, and this Court affirmed (see Alam v. Alam, 168 A.D.3d 896, 90 N.Y.S.3d 558 ). The claimant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and his motion was denied
on May 9, 2019 (see Alam v. Alam, 33 N.Y.3d 904, 125 N.E.3d 156 ).
On October 15, 2019, the claimant filed a notice of intention to file a claim against the defendant, State of New York, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 based on allegations of judicial misconduct in the divorce action. On that same date, the State rejected the notice on the ground that it was unverified.
Nonetheless, on or about December 17, 2019, the claimant filed and served the instant claim alleging, inter alia, that various State court justices and judges had made errors, engaged in judicial misconduct, discriminated against him based on his sex and age in violation of his civil rights, unjustly enriched his former wife at his expense and/or intentionally subjected him to emotional distress in resolving the equitable distribution and maintenance aspects of the divorce action. The State moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 to dismiss the claim.
To continue reading
Request your trial