Craver v. State

The State of New York has moved in each of the above-entitled claims (Motions Nos. 2323, 2324) for an order dismissing the claim on the ground “ that the Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject ” and on the further ground “ that the claim does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the State of New York ”.

Claimants have brought on a cross motion (Motion No. 2323-A) pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 10, of the Court of Claims Act for an order permitting each of them to file a claim in the event that the motion of the State be upheld on the ground that the claims as filed have not been timely filed and/or timely served. Claimants concede that unless the claims state a cause of action the cross motions must be denied and the claims must be dismissed. (Claimants’ brief, p. 1.)

Claimants allege in their respective claims as filed: that on July 27, 1951, claimant, George Graver’s automobile in which claimant, Josephine Craver, was riding was in collision with an automobile operated by one, Eddie Webster, in a negligent and careless manner, and that the collision caused injury and damage to them; that prior to said accident the operator’s license and registration privileges of said Eddie Webster had been suspended by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action “ Settled rules of construction are to be applied. ‘ If in any aspect upon the facts stated the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery, the motion should be denied.’ (Dyer v. Broadway Central Bank, 252 N. Y. 430 , 432.) The whole of the pleading must be considered. (Calvo v. Davies, 73 N. Y. 211 , 218.) However imperfectly, informally or even illogically the facts may be stated, a complaint, attacked for insufficiency, is deemed to allege ‘ whatever can be implied from its statements by fair and reasonable intendment.’ (Kain v. Larkin, 141 N. Y. 144 , 151.) The question for us is whether the requisite allegations of any valid cause of action cognizable by the state courts ‘ can be fairly gathered from all the averments.’ (Moss v. Cohen, 158 N. Y. 240 , 247; Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 N. Y. 322 , 330.) ” (Condon v. Associated Hosp. Service of New York, 287 N. Y. 411 , 414.) Applying those principles to the claims as filed we conclude that the allegations thereof do not state a cause of action. (Paglia v. State of New York, 278 App. Div. 281 , affd. 303 N. Y. 821 ; Chikofsky v. State of New York, 203 Misc. 646 .) Since we have concluded that claimants’ claims as filed do not set forth a cause of action against the State of New York, we do not reach the other issue argued by the State of New York, viz.: that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the action because the claims herein have not been timely filed and/or timely served.

A motion brought on pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act for leave to file a claim cannot be granted unless the proposed claim forming part of the moving papers states a cause of action against the State. (Apropo v. State of New York, 161 Misc. 142 , affd. 252 App. Div. 803 ; Siegel

Motions by the State to dismiss each of the above-entitled claims are granted upon the ground that each of the above claims as filed does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the State of New York.

Therefore, the cross motion (Motion No. 2323-A) brought on by each of the above-named claimants for permission to file a claim herein must be and hereby is denied upon the ground that the attached claim in each of the applications herein does not state a cause of action against the State of New York.

Submit order accordingly.