Brady v. State, # 2013-028-503

• Decision Date: 03 April 2013
• Docket Number: Motion No. M-82319,# 2013-028-503
• Parties: KEVIN PATRICK BRADY v. STATE OF NEW YORK
• Court: New York Court of Claims

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK

# 2013-028-503
Motion No. M-82319

Court of Claims of New York

April 3, 2013

Synopsis

Case information

UID: 2013-028-503
                Claimant(s): KEVIN PATRICK BRADY
                Claimant short name: BRADY
                Footnote (claimant name)
                Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK
                Footnote (defendant name)
                Third-party claimant(s)
                Third-party defendant(s)
                Claim number(s): None
                Motion number(s): M-82319
                Cross-motion number(s):
                Judge: RICHARD E. SISE
                Claimant's attorney: KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, PRO SE
                 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
                Defendant's attorney: BY: Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq.
                 Assistant Attorney General
                Third-party defendant's attorney:
                Signature date: April 3, 2013
                City: Albany
                Comments:
                Official citation:
                Appellate results:
                See also (multicaptioned case)
                

Decision

The following papers were read on Movant's motion for "complete findings":

1. "Motion for Complete Findings" of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se; and

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Thomas G. Ramsay, AAG;

Filed papers: None

As first explained in a 2007 decision (Brady v State of New York, et al., UID No. 2007-028-559 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J. July 16, 2007]), Movant is required to obtain permission of the Supervising Judge or his designee before commencing an action in this Court. Subsequent to the date that decision was issued, Movant has commenced a number of other motions (or taken actions that were deemed to be motions), the most recent being Brady v State of New York, Inc. (36 Misc 3d 1230[A] [Ct Cl 2012]).

In the instant submission, Movant again seeks to invalidate several money judgments against him that were obtained in connection with proceedings in other courts and placed as liens on his real property. Movant asserts:

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 9(2) this Court has jurisdiction to hear claims and award damages caused by, inter alia, a void money judgment that names the People of New York creditors and lien holders on your deponents [sic] real property.

In fact, section 9(2) of the Court of Claims Act provides as follows:

To hear and determine a claim of any person, corporation or municipality against the state for the appropriation of any real or personal property or any interest therein, for the breach of contract, express or implied, or for the torts of its officers or employees while acting as such officers or employees, providing the claimant complies with the limitations of this article. For the purposes of this act only, a real property tax lien shall be deemed...