Mooraty v. State, 2021-51286

CourtNew York Court of Claims
Writing for the CourtWalter Rivera, J.
Decision Date22 December 2021
PartiesLeivelle Mooraty, Claimant, v. State of New York, County of Dutchess, Dutchess County District Attorney's Office, New York State Trooper Zachary T. Zyskowski, John Does State Troopers 1 through 99, and Jane Does State Troopers 1 through 99, Defendant(s).
Docket Number2021-51286,Claim 136658

Leivelle Mooraty, Claimant,
v.

State of New York, County of Dutchess, Dutchess County District Attorney's Office, New York State Trooper Zachary T. Zyskowski, John Does State Troopers 1 through 99, and Jane Does State Troopers 1 through 99, Defendant(s).

No. 2021-51286

Claim No. 136658

Court of Claims

December 22, 2021


Unpublished Opinion

For Claimant:

SCALE, LLP

By: Matthew H. Herlihy, Esq.

For Defendant(s):

MC CABE & MACK, LLP

By: Nicholas Tarkazikis, Esq.

Walter Rivera, J.

The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on the pre-answer motion of the County of Dutchess (County) and the Dutchess County District Attorney's Office (DCDAO) to dismiss Claim No. 136658 as asserted against the County and the DCDAO:

Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibit [1] 1

Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition 2

Attorney's Reply Affirmation 3

Attorney's Amended Affirmation in Opposition [2] 4

Claim No. 136658 alleges that on or about December 3, 2020, claimant was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was stopped in Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, and searched by NYS Trooper Zachary T. Zyskowski (Ex. A). As a result of the search, the Trooper recovered a pill bottle with claimant's name on it and issued claimant a desk appearance ticket for Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the 7th degree and directed claimant to appear for an arraignment before the local justice court in the Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, on January 6, 2021. Claimant maintains that he was in lawful possession of the pills. The charges against claimant were dismissed. The claim alleges damages as a result of the alleged violations of claimant's civil rights and liberties and his state and federal constitutional rights.

The County and the DCDAO move to dismiss the claim as asserted against them on the grounds that, inter alia, the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as asserted against the County and DCDAO and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over said defendants.

Claimant opposes the motion arguing, inter alia, that the motion to dismiss "must be deemed moot" as claimant has filed a companion action against the County and the DCDAO in Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Index Number 2021-53852) (Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition ¶ 2). Claimant further argues that a valid cause of action has been stated against said defendants and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT