Papers Considered: Notice of Intention to File Claim & Verified Claim 1-3 Notice of Motion, Affirmation & Exhibits Annexed 4-17 Memorandum of Law in Opposition, Affirmation & Exhibits Annexed 18-43 Reply Affirmation & Exhibits Annexed 44 DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing papers and for the following reasons, the Motion by Defendant State of New York (hereinafter “State”), seeking the dismissal of this Claim, is granted and the Claim is hereby dismissed as provided hereinbelow. The following facts are essentially undisputed. On May 27, 2008, Claimant Nathaniel Isaac (hereinafter “Claimant”) was arrested on criminal charges arising from an incident that day, during which he was allegedly seen trespassing and transporting stolen goods from a building rooftop to the street and placing them on his shopping cart. The parties agree that on the sidewalk, two very large boxes each containing twelve pairs of women’s footwear were recovered. Claimant pled not guilty at arraignment and was released with a desk appearance ticket. Afterwards, the NYC Police Department conducted an investigation and learned that at some point between May 23, 2008, and May 27, 2008, a break-in and burglary of certain boxes of merchandise had occurred at a warehouse adjacent to the building where Claimant had been seen on May 27, 2008. As a result, Claimant was rearrested and criminally charged with one count each of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §140.20), criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law §145.05), criminal trespass in the third degree (Penal Law §165.45[1]), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law §165.40), based on his alleged unlawful entry into the warehouse, rooftop and damage caused to the warehouse. Unable to post the set bail, Claimant remained in pre-trial detention for over two years awaiting his criminal trial. While Claimant was represented by several attorneys appointed to him pursuant to County Law §18-B, irreconcilable differences between him and his attorneys apparently prompted counsel to withdraw. Upon his fourth application for new counsel, the Queens County Supreme Court declined to appoint additional counsel based on Claimant’s prior dilatory, disrespectful and argumentative conduct with assigned counsel. On July 19, 2010, the then pro-se Claimant waived his right to a jury trial and a bench trial was commenced before the Hon. Stephen Knopf of Queens County Supreme Court. After the nonjury trial where the arresting police officer, the warehouse owner and the civilian eyewitness testified, the Supreme Court (Knopf, J.) convicted Claimant of one count each of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. Subsequently, on September 8, 2010, the same Supreme Court sentenced Claimant – as a second felony offender – to a term of imprisonment of three and a half to seven years for the burglary count to run concurrently with a one-year definite sentence for the criminal mischief and possession of stolen property. He was remanded to the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”). Claimant unsuccessfully moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, but timely appealed his conviction. Between September 8, 2010, and October 9, 2014, Claimant spent over four post-conviction years in state prison for the abovementioned crimes. By Decision and Order dated October 8, 2014, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the guilty verdict, vacated the counts, and dismissed all charges against the Claimant (see People v. Isaac, 121 AD3d 816 [2nd Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]). Specifically, the Appellate Division vacated the burglary and criminal mischief counts on the ground that the People failed to establish with sufficient evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the Claimant had broken into the warehouse and caused damage to the building. As to the criminal possession of stolen property count, the Appellate Division found that “[t]he evidence showed that the [Claimant] was found in possession of some of the alleged proceeds of the burglary on the date of apprehension” (id. at 817). However, The [Claimant]‘s conduct, as reflected by the record, did not support or justify the Supreme Court’s ruling, which forced the [Claimant] to proceed to trial without the benefit of counsel (see People v. Williams, 101 AD3d 1730, 1733-1734; People v. Bullock, 75 AD3d 1148, 1150; see also People v. Campbell, 281 AD2d 488, revd on other grounds 97 NY2d 532). Under these circumstances, the [Claimant] is entitled to a new trial on the count of the indictment charging him with criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law §165.40), based on the violation of the right to counsel (see People v. Williams, 101 AD3d at 1734; see also People v. Bullock, 75 AD3d at 1151). However, he has already served the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon a conviction of that crime (see Penal Law §70.15[1]). Under the circumstances, we do not order a new trial, but rather, dismiss that count of the indictment (see People v. Flynn, 79 NY2d 879; People v. Maio Ni, 293 AD2d 552) (id. at 817-818). Pursuant to the Appellate Division Decision, Claimant was released on October 9, 2014, from DOCCS in whose custody he had been imprisoned since his 2010 sentence. On November 7, 2014, the Supreme Court (Knopf, J.) dismissed the criminal charges against Claimant, and a Certificate of Disposition was issued on October 28, 2015. The New York Court of Appeals denied the Claimant leave to appeal (supra, 24 NY3d 1220). By Notice of Intention to File a Claim filed on January 5, 2015, Claimant commenced the instant action against the State in the Court of Claims, alleging that he was wrongfully convicted and falsely imprisoned in violation of the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act (Court of Claims Act §8-b). The Verified Claim, filed on October 3, 2016, particularized that the Claimant is seeking to recover monetary damages as a result of the State’s malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction of him in that the State’s “agents and employees knew, or should have known, that there was insufficient evidence to show that Claimant committed these alleged crimes,” “false and fabricated” pieces of evidence, and that he was “completely innocent of all charges in the indictment” (Verified Claim at 7, 14,
