Clark v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | 525916 |
| Parties | Donna CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
165 A.D.3d 1371
85 N.Y.S.3d 620
Donna CLARK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of New York, Respondent.
525916
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: September 14, 2018
Decided and Entered: October 11, 2018
Donna Clark, Albany, appellant pro se.
Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Lynch, J.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Milano, J.), entered March 3, 2017, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim.
From 2005 to 2007, claimant worked for the Office of the State Comptroller (hereinafter OSC) as a Calculations Clerk 1. In March 2007, claimant was placed on involuntary leave due to inappropriate behavior and, following hearings pursuant to Civil Service Law § 72, claimant was found to be unfit to perform her duties and a danger to her coworkers and was ultimately terminated from her employment in July 2009 ( Clark v. Dominique, 798 F.Supp.2d 390, 395–398 [N.D. N.Y.2011] ). Thereafter, claimant filed multiple employment-related discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and commenced subsequent federal actions, each of which was dismissed ( Clark v. New York State Office of the Comptroller, 2014 WL 823289, *13, 2014 U.S. Dist LEXIS 26575, *42 [N.D. N.Y., Mar. 3, 2014, No. 09–CV–716 (GLS/CFH) ] ; Clark v. Dominique, 798 F.Supp.2d at 395–398 ). In May 2014, claimant served a notice of intention to file a claim against defendant in which she raised allegations spanning from 1987 through March 2014 and continuing. In February 2016, claimant filed this claim seeking $120 million in damages as the result of alleged adverse and discriminatory employment actions taken by, among other government officials and personnel, various employees of OSC and the New York State and Local Retirement System. In lieu of answering, defendant moved to dismiss the claim, asserting, among other things, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claim failed to comply with the substantive pleading requirements
of Court of Claims Act § 11(b). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flowers v. State
...defect" ( Kolnacki v. State of New York , 8 N.Y.3d at 281, 832 N.Y.S.2d 481, 864 N.E.2d 611 ; see Clark v. State of New York , 165 A.D.3d 1371, 1372, 85 N.Y.S.3d 620 [2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 905, 2019 WL 2375468 [2019] ). As required, defendant promptly rejected and returned the claim, n......
-
People v. Adams
...435, 108 N.E.3d 509 [2018] ). Defendant next contends that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without undertaking a 85 N.Y.S.3d 620sufficient inquiry into defendant's alleged violation of the terms of the plea agreement – namely, that he not violate any jail rules while con......