Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/116551244/NY-2012-07-12-Laity-v-State-of-NY-Decision
Timestamp: 2017-02-22 09:45:17
Document Index: 730557284

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 15301', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 19', '§ 6']

NY 2012-07-12 - Laity v State of NY - Decision | Plaintiff | New York
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinLAITY v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2012-039-319, Claim No. 120982...http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/search/display.html?terms=&ur...
LAITY v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2012-039-319, Claim No. 120982, Motion No. M-81370 Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted. The claim primarily challenges a determination of the New York State Board of Elections and seeks equitable or declaratory relief. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: Claimant's attorney: Defendant's attorney:
Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: City: Comments: Official citation: Appellate results:
120982 M-81370 July 12, 2012 Albany
UID: Claimant(s): Claimant short name: Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): Footnote (defendant name) :
STATE OF NEW YORK The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant.
James H. Ferreira Robert C. Laity, pro se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi Assistant Attorney General
2012-039-319 ROBERT C. LAITY LAITY
LAITY v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2012-039-319, Claim No. 120982...
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/search/display.html?terms=&ur...
Claimant, proceeding pro se, filed this claim with the Clerk of the Court of Claims on March 1, 2012. In it, claimant alleges that, on December 2, 2011, he filed objections with the New York State Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) to the inclusion of President Barack Obama on New York State's 2012 presidential ballot (see generally Election Law § 6-154 [2]). He sent his objections by regular and certified mail. A Board representative later informed claimant that "action [on his objections] would be taken after the declarations were filed" (Claim, p. 1). Claimant resubmitted his objections electronically on February 10, 2012, one day after he alleges President Obama was designated as a candidate for President in the 2012 election. Claimant alleges that the Board wrongfully refused to accept his objections because he electronically filed them. He states that he is a "100% Disabled Vietnam War Veteran with severe limitations" and that the Board's actions violated the Help America Vote Act (hereinafter HAVA) (see 42 USC §§ 15301-15545) and his voter's rights (Claim, p. 1). Claimant states that he "claim[s] damages to the extent yet to be determined" and moves the Court "to order the Board to accept [his] Objections and to award damages" (Claim, p. 1). On March 5, 2012, claimant filed a "Claim Addendum. He attached the Board's determination with respect to his objections, dated February 28, 2012, which he states that he received after filing this claim. In the "Addendum," claimant raises several specific challenges to the findings of the Board with respect to his objections.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited, with some exceptions not relevant here, to claims for money damages against the State (see Carver v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]; see also NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act § 9). "In determining whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, the initial question is '[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim' " (Green v State of New York, 90 AD3d 1577, 1578 [2011], lv dismissed and lv denied 18 NY3d 901 [2012], quoting Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]; see Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). The second inquiry is "whether the underlying claim, regardless of how it has been characterized, 'would require review of an administrative agency's determination - which the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain' " (Matter of Salahuddin v Connell, 53 AD3d 898, 899 [2008], quoting City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v State of New York, 86 AD3d 820, 820 [2011]). Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. This claim primarily challenges the Board's determination with respect to claimant's objections and seeks equitable or declaratory relief in the form of an order directing the Board to accept his objections. Although claimant states that he is seeking, in part, money damages, any monetary relief granted would be incidental to the primary purpose of the claim, which is to obtain acceptance of claimant's objections. Indeed, claimant acknowledges in his opposition to this motion that he is "not interested so much in money damages but do not waive those that are allowed by Law" (Motion in Opposition, p. 4). Moreover, as the Court
Defendant now moves the Court, in lieu of an answer, for an order dismissing the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (2) on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Specifically, defendant argues that the claim primarily seeks equitable relief or relief in the nature of mandamus, which the Court has no jurisdiction to grant. Defendant further argues that, inasmuch at the claim alleges some violation of HAVA, that cause of action should also be dismissed, as claimant fails to state any specific section of the statute that was violated and, even so, HAVA does not create a private right of action. Claimant opposes the motion.
reads it, the gravamen of this claim is that the Board's actions with respect to claimant's objections violated his rights. The Court finds that it cannot ascertain claimant's entitlement to relief without reviewing the underlying administrative determination (see Matter of Salahuddin v Connell, 53 AD3d at 899-900). As such, the claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Papers Considered: 1. Notice of Motion dated April 4, 2012;
2. Affirmation in Support by Anthony Rotondi, AAG dated April 4, 2012 and exhibits attached thereto; and 3. Motion in Opposition by claimant dated April 10, 2012.
3. In his opposition to the motion, claimant requests that the Court transfer the claim to the New York State Supreme Court if it dismisses this claim for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court does not possess the power to transfer claims to Supreme Court (see Selby v State of New York, 15 Misc 3d 1144 [A] [Ct Cl 2007]; Maric Mechanical v State of New York, 145 Misc 2d 287, 292 [Ct Cl 1989]; see generally NY Const, art VI, § 19).
2. In its determination, the Board found that claimant "has failed to timely file general objections[,] has failed to file specifications of objections as required by Election Law § 6-154 and . . . has failed to adhere to a rule of the [Board] which requires service of the objections upon the candidates for party position or the first person named on the petitions committee to fill vacancies" (Board's Determination, dated February 28, 2012). The Board also found that claimant lacked standing to object to the party position and that the objection was made in the incorrect venue. Accordingly, the Board determined that claimant's general objection was void.
James H. Ferreira Judge of the Court of Claims
July 12, 2012 Albany, New York
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulNY 2012-07-12 - Laity v State of NY - Decision by Jack Ryan0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadInterests: New YorkRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedLLF - TN - Appeal - 2013-04-01 - LLF Opp to Motion to Dismissby Jack RyanSchneller v. Corbett - 2013-07-13 - Lower Court AFFIRMEDby Jack RyanGuthrie - ECF 13 - 2013-04-02 - Guthrie Motion to Compelby Jack RyanTranscript Grinols et al. v Obama et al.by AnitaMariaSSDIN ECF 18 Guthrie v USA - Guthrie Reply to OSCby Jack RyanFarah v Esquire Appeal - Doc 21 - 2013-04-08 - Esquire Replyby Jack RyanFarah v Esquire Appeal - Doc 20 - 2013-03-17 - Farah Replyby Jack RyanSCOAL - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Clerk Notice to Lucas Smithby Jack RyanCDCA ECF 612 2013-03-31 - Liberi v Taitz - Response to Additional Briefing Re Sanctionsby Jack RyanSCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Briefby Jack RyanEDCA ECF 125 2013-04-22 - Grinols v Electoral College - Minutes Re Hearing - Motion to Dismiss GRANTEDby Jack RyanEd CA Ecf 127 2013-05-23 - Grinols v Electoral College - Memorandum and Order Dismissing Caseby Jack RyanEDCA ECF 112 2013-04-03 - Grinols v Electoral College - Fed Defendants Opp to Stay Pending Appealby Jack RyanSCOAL - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Connerat Motion for Declaratory Judgmentby Jack RyanCOACA Third Appellate District - Noonan v Bowen APPEAL - Brief of Respondents OBAMA and OfACA - FINAL 130820by Jack RyanEDCA ECF 107 2013-04-02 - Grinols v Electoral College - Taitz Appeal Processed Docsby Jack RyanPURPURA v SEBELIUS (THIRD CIRCUIT) - JUDGMENT - Transport Roomby Jack Ryan2012-09-07 NJ - Purpura Moran v Obama -ORDER Denying Petition for Certification to NJSCby Jack RyanFL VOELTZ - OBAMA 2013-03-11 Response Opposition to Written Orderby Jack RyanStrunk Appeal 12-5289 - 2013-04-02 - OrDER Denying IFP Motionby Jack RyanStatement of Points on Appeal Alaska Supreme Court Lamb v Obamaby Tom LambE.D.ca ECF 82 2013-03-04 - Grinols v Electoral College - Opposition to MtDby Jack Ryan"Complaint" in Taitz v. I Don't Know Who.by Mike DunfordEDCA ECF 64 2013-01-30 - Grinols v Electoral College - Notice of Default of Defendant Obamaby Jack RyanEDCA ECF 115 2013-04-03 - Grinols v Electoral College - Taitz Opposition to Motion to Dismissby Jack RyanCA 2013-04-05 - Dummett v Bowen Appeal - Remittitur of Appeal to Trial Court Clerk - Costs Assessed Against Appellantby Jack RyanFarah v Esquire Per Curiam Orderby Loren CollinsSCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Appellants Reply Briefby Jack RyanSimilar to NY 2012-07-12 - Laity v State of NY - DecisionSkip carouselLLF - TN - Appeal - 2013-04-01 - LLF Opp to Motion to DismissSchneller v. Corbett - 2013-07-13 - Lower Court AFFIRMEDGuthrie - ECF 13 - 2013-04-02 - Guthrie Motion to CompelTranscript Grinols et al. v Obama et al.SDIN ECF 18 Guthrie v USA - Guthrie Reply to OSCFarah v Esquire Appeal - Doc 21 - 2013-04-08 - Esquire ReplyFarah v Esquire Appeal - Doc 20 - 2013-03-17 - Farah ReplySCOAL - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Clerk Notice to Lucas SmithCDCA ECF 612 2013-03-31 - Liberi v Taitz - Response to Additional Briefing Re SanctionsSCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman BriefEDCA ECF 125 2013-04-22 - Grinols v Electoral College - Minutes Re Hearing - Motion to Dismiss GRANTEDEd CA Ecf 127 2013-05-23 - Grinols v Electoral College - Memorandum and Order Dismissing CaseEDCA ECF 112 2013-04-03 - Grinols v Electoral College - Fed Defendants Opp to Stay Pending AppealSCOAL - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Connerat Motion for Declaratory JudgmentCOACA Third Appellate District - Noonan v Bowen APPEAL - Brief of Respondents OBAMA and OfACA - FINAL 130820EDCA ECF 107 2013-04-02 - Grinols v Electoral College - Taitz Appeal Processed DocsPURPURA v SEBELIUS (THIRD CIRCUIT) - JUDGMENT - Transport Room2012-09-07 NJ - Purpura Moran v Obama -ORDER Denying Petition for Certification to NJSCFL VOELTZ - OBAMA 2013-03-11 Response Opposition to Written OrderStrunk Appeal 12-5289 - 2013-04-02 - OrDER Denying IFP MotionStatement of Points on Appeal Alaska Supreme Court Lamb v ObamaE.D.ca ECF 82 2013-03-04 - Grinols v Electoral College - Opposition to MtD"Complaint" in Taitz v. I Don't Know Who.EDCA ECF 64 2013-01-30 - Grinols v Electoral College - Notice of Default of Defendant ObamaEDCA ECF 115 2013-04-03 - Grinols v Electoral College - Taitz Opposition to Motion to DismissCA 2013-04-05 - Dummett v Bowen Appeal - Remittitur of Appeal to Trial Court Clerk - Costs Assessed Against AppellantFarah v Esquire Per Curiam OrderSCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Appellants Reply BriefLLF - TN - Appeal - 2013-03-21 - Appellees Motion to DismissSCOAL 2013-05-13 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Irelan Amicus BriefNY 2012-07-12 - Laity v State of NY - Decision