Gutterman v. State
| Decision Date | 01 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. 136118 |
| Citation | 74 Misc.3d 365,161 N.Y.S.3d 692 |
| Parties | Carole L. GUTTERMAN, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
For Claimant: The Law Office of Joseph Monaco, PC, By: Joseph D. Monaco III, Esq., New York
For Defendant: HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, By: Susan M. Connolly, Assistant Attorney General
The instant claim was filed on March 16, 2021 seeking damages for injuries sustained on March 18, 2019 when claimant fell at the security screening area inside the Suffolk County Supreme Court Building located at 1 Court Street, Riverhead, New York 11901. Claimant, who has disabling conditions and requires the assistance of a quad cane to walk, entered the building and was directed by a court officer, a State employee, to place her cane on a conveyor belt for x-ray inspection. Claimant then walked through the magnetometer and was instructed to collect her items, including her quad cane, from the conveyor belt. When claimant reached for her items, she fell and sustained injuries. The claim alleges eight causes of action including (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA); (3) conspiracy to deprive claimant of civil rights in violation of 42 USC § 1985 ; (4) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; (5) violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL); (6) violation of the Suffolk County Human Rights Law; (7) violation of New York State Civil Rights Law § 40-c ; and (8) common law negligence (see Verified Claim).
Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim on the grounds that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim; (2) the claimant lacks standing; and (3) the claim fails to state a cause of action.
Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim to the extent that claimant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, criminal relief, and punitive damages.
Insofar as the proposed claim seeks a declaration declaring that the State violated certain statutes and regulations, and declaring the rights of the claimant as to the premises, this Court lacks jurisdiction as the Court of Claims "is not the appropriate forum in which to seek declaratory relief" ( Shelton v. New York State Liq. Auth. , 61 A.D.3d 1145, 1151, 878 N.Y.S.2d 212 [3d Dept. 2009] ; CPLR § 3001 ; Court of Claims Act § 9 ). Nor is the Court of Claims the appropriate forum within which to bring a claim for injunctive relief or for punitive damages. The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief ( Matter of Milner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. , 4 Misc. 3d 221, 777 N.Y.S.2d 604 [Ct. Cl. 2004], affd 24 A.D.3d 977, 805 N.Y.S.2d 480 [3d Dept. 2005] ), and the waiver of immunity set forth in Court of Claims Act § 8 does not permit punitive damages to be assessed against the State or its political subdivisions ( Sharapata v. Town of Islip , 56 N.Y.2d 332, 452 N.Y.S.2d 347, 437 N.E.2d 1104 [1982] ).1 As to claimant's request to find the State guilty of a misdemeanor, the Court of Claims does not have the authority to prosecute violations of the Penal Law ().2 The Court therefore lacks the jurisdiction to bring criminal charges against a person or entity.
The Court also lacks jurisdiction over the claim alleging a violation of the Suffolk County Human Rights Law. Suffolk County Code § 528-13, which establishes the procedure for bringing a complaint under the Suffolk County Human Rights Law, states that the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission (the Commission) has jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the Suffolk County Human Rights Law. The Commission investigates the claim and, if probable cause exists, refers the claim to an administrative law judge to hold a hearing and issue a decision (see Suffolk County Code § 528-13). In the event that an action or proceeding is necessary for the enforcement of any order issued by the Commission, such action or proceeding must be brought in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Suffolk County Code § 258-16 [A]). It is clear from these enforcement provisions that jurisdiction for claims brought pursuant to the Suffolk County Human Rights Law lies with the Commission and New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, not the Court of Claims. This cause of action is therefore dismissed.
To the extent that claimant alleges violations of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims, as they must be brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 and may not be maintained in the Court of Claims, given that the State is not a "person" for purposes of the statute (see Brown v. State of New York , 89 N.Y.2d 172, 185, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 674 N.E.2d 1129 [1996] ; Zagarella v. State of New York , 149 A.D.2d 503, 504, 539 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2d Dept. 1989] ; Ohnmacht v. State of New York , 14 Misc. 3d 1231 [A], at *2, 2007 WL 474419 [Ct. Cl. 2007] ).
Defendant also argues that claimant's 42 USC § 1983 cause of action must be dismissed. However, claimant does not assert a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983. Rather, claimants assert a cause of action for conspiracy to deprive claimant of civil rights in violation of 42 USC § 1985. However, claimant "is willing to discontinue" her claim under 42 USC § 1985 (Affirmation in Opposition, ¶ 2 [G]). Because claimant has not stated unequivocally that she wishes to discontinue this cause of action and because defendant has failed to address the relevant statute, the Court will not dismiss claimant's 42 USC § 1985 claim at this juncture.
Lastly, defendant argues that causes of action arising under the ADA and seeking monetary damages cannot be heard in the Court of Claims. Defendant cites Lugo v. St. Nicholas Assoc. , 18 A.D.3d 341, 795 N.Y.S.2d 227 [1st Dept. 2005], in support of this argument. However, Lugo analyzed a claim brought pursuant to Title III of the ADA which prohibits disability-based discrimination in public accommodations by private entities. Title II, which applies to claimant's cause of action, prohibits disability-based discrimination in the "services, programs, or activities of a public entity" ( 42 USC § 12132 ). Importantly, Title III's remedy provision ( 42 USC § 12188 [a]), is different from Title II's remedy provision ( 42 USC § 12133 ). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the remedy provisions in Title II of the ADA authorize suits for money damages against states ( United States v. Georgia , 546 U.S. 151, 158-159, 126 S.Ct. 877, 163 L.Ed.2d 650 [2006] ). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over claimant's ADA claims, as the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over actions for money damages against the State of New York ( Carlson v. State of New York , 34 Misc. 3d 242, 249, 932 N.Y.S.2d 812 [Ct. Cl. 2011] ; Court of Claims Act § 9 ; see also Caballero v State of New York , UID No. 2020-015-074 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Sept. 22, 2020]; Gill v State of New York , UID No. 2007-034-539 [Ct Cl, Hudson, J., Oct. 1, 2007]).3
Title II of the ADA requires that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity" ( 42 USC § 12132 ). Section 504 of the RA requires that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ..." ( 29 USC § 794 [a]). The State has waived its sovereign immunity as to claims brought under the RA by its acceptance of federal funds (Caballero v State of New York , UID No. 2020-015-074 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Sept. 22, 2020]).
Defendant argues that claimant failed to plead any factual allegations demonstrating that defendant exhibited a discriminatory animus or ill will based on claimant's disability, which is required to assert an ADA cause of action against the State. Defendant is correct that "a private suit for money damages under Title II of the ADA may only be maintained against a state if the plaintiff can establish that the Title II violation was motivated by either discriminatory animus or ill will due to disability" ( Garcia v. S.U.NY Health Sciences Ctr. of Brooklyn , 280 F.3d 98, 112 [2d Cir. 2001] ). This high burden is "consistent with state sovereign immunity and Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment" ( Felix v. City of New York , 344 F. Supp. 3d 644, 665 [S.D. N.Y. 2018] ). Claimant alleges that the State's failure to remove architectural barriers and failure to construct and maintain an accessible entrance and security area constitutes discrimination under the ADA (Verified Claim ¶¶ 48-70). However, the claim is devoid of any allegations establishing that the State acted with discriminatory animus or ill will. Accordingly, although the Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claims, claimant has failed to state a cause of action for violation of the ADA. The ADA claim is therefore dismissed.4
Defendant seeks to dismiss claimant's RA claim on the ground that claimant made inconsistent statements concerning her fall. More specifically, defendant asserts claimant's allegedly inconsistent statements in her federal complaint regarding whether she was directed to step onto an elevated platform in the security screening area or whether she was not directed to do so. Defendant also argues that claimant testified during her 50-h hearing with Suffolk County that she was able to access the courthouse...
To continue reading
Request your trial