Brady v. State, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. M–80869.,M–80869.
• Parties: Kevin Patrick BRADY, Claimant, v. The STATE OF NEW YORK, INC., COunty of Monroe, Inc., Village of East Rochester, Inc., and other john doe, defendants, Defendants.
• Court: New York Court of Claims

36 Misc.3d 1230
959 N.Y.S.2d 88
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51560

Kevin Patrick BRADY, Claimant,
v.
The STATE OF NEW YORK, INC., COunty of Monroe, Inc., Village of East Rochester, Inc., and other john doe, defendants, Defendants.

No. M–80869.

Court of Claims of New York.

June 28, 2012.

Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, Claimant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, by: Th, for Defendants.

RICHARD E. SISE, J.

The following papers were read on Movant's motion for permission to file a claim:

1. “Notice of Claim/Affidavit of Service” of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se;

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

3.Letter brief captioned “Re: Affirmation in Opposition by Assistant Attorney General Thomas G. Ramsay” of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se; and

4. “Notice of Continuing Defaults” of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se.

Filed papers: None

Because of earlier events and rulings that were set forth, in detail, in a previous decision, Movant is required to obtain permission of the Supervising Judge or his designee before he can commence an action in this Court. ( Brady v. State of New York, et al., UID No.2007–028–559, [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., July 16, 2007] ). Consequently, his initial submission, captioned “Notice of Claim/Affidavit of Service”, was accepted by the Chief Clerk as commencing a motion for permission to file a claim.

In his submission, Movant demands money damages in the sum of $1,000,000.00 from the several named Defendants to compensate for harm that, it is alleged, he has suffered because his several prior claims were dismissed and because they were dismissed in such a manner that precludes appeal to a higher court. Movant also asks that the Court suspend and abate all taxes owed on his real and personal property. Finally, he alleges that his rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically “free access to an uncorrupted forum, due process and equal protection under the law” have been violated.

Certain portions of the proposed claim must be stricken at the outset. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over claims brought against the State of New York, its subdivisions and certain public authorities. It does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought against any of the other Defendants who are named in the caption of the proposed claim: the County of Monroe, the Village of East Rochester, Inc., or “other john doe defendants”. Also, with certain limited exceptions not relevant here, the Court of Claims does not have the power to grant equitable relief and thus could not, under any circumstances, suspend the imposition of taxes on an individual's personal and real property. Finally, no cause of action against the State of New York exists for alleged violations of an individual's rights secured by the United States Constitution (Matter of Thomas v. New York Temporary State Commn. on Regulation of Lobbying, 83 A.D.2d 723 [3d Dept 1981], affd56 N.Y.2d 656), nor is the State a “person” amenable to suit under 42 USC § 1983 (Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 [1989];Welch v. State of New York, 286 A.D.2d 496, 498 [2d Dept 2001]; Zagarella v. State of New York, 149 A.D.2d 503 [2d Dept 1989]; Davis v. State of New York, 124 A.D.2d 420, 423 [3d Dept 1986] ). Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear actions based on allegations that an individual's rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated.

What remains is a proposed claim for money damages based on allegations that the Court of Claims has wrongfully dismissed previous claims that Movant has sought to file and that they were dismissed in such a way that those rulings could not be appealed. As a technical matter, the previous “dismissals” of which Movant complains were actually denials of motions for permission to file those claims.

There can be no dispute that in ruling on the prior motions for permission to file a claim, this Court was exercising its judicial function. The validity and viability of a cause of action based on allegations that such actions were wrongful, or even malicious, are well-settled and has been addressed on a number of previous occasions in connection with this movant's attempts to file claims in this Court. For example, in Brady v. State of New York, et al., (UID No.2008–028–507 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Jan. 15, 2008] ), the Court stated:

The actions of judicial officers in carrying out their judicial function are entitled to absolute immunity from liability (Salzano v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 A.D.2d 716 [2002];Bardascini v. Reedy, 51 A.D.2d 271, 272 [3d Dept 1976], lv denied40 N.Y.2d 803 [1976] ).

If an action is immune from liability, then there can be no award of money damages for any harm it may have caused. Consequently, the claim or proposed claim based on such allegations does not set forth a cause of action on which this Court can grant relief.

If the Court were to permit it to be filed, such a claim would be subject to immediate dismissal, with the only result being an additional waste of the Court's, the State's and Movant's own resources. It must be...