The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on the State’s motion to dismiss: Notice of Motion, Attorney’s Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits 1 Claimant’s Opposition to Motion 2 Attorney’s Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant’s Reply 3 DECISION AND ORDER The instant claim alleges that on October 5, 2022, during claimant’s incarceration at Greene Correctional Facility, claimant’s personal property in the amount of $185.53 was missing due to the State’s alleged negligence (Exs. A, D). The State moves to dismiss the claim on two grounds. First, the State argues that the claim should be dismissed because the claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to serving and filing the instant claim, as required by Court of Claims Act Section 10 (9). The second basis is that on June 7, 2023, claimant accepted a settlement from New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) of his facility personal property claim in the amount of $185.53 and signed a Claim and Release form (Ex. H). The Claim and Release form provides that, in conjunction with the acceptance of the settlement, claimant agrees to “fully release and discharge the State of New York and NYS DOCCS GREENE, its officers, agents and employees from all claims, demands and liability of every kind and nature, legal or equitable, occasioned by or arising out of the facts set forth” in the claimant’s facility personal property claim (id.). The Claim and Release form also provides that, ” [i]n the event that any claim shall have been filed with the clerk of the Court of Claims for said damages at any time prior to the date of this release, I hereby consent and stipulate that an order may be made by the Court of Claims dismissing said claim upon the merits” (id.). In opposition to the State’s motion to dismiss, claimant’s Opposing Affidavit states in pertinent part: “Claimant concedes that he accepted settlement and executed release of liability in connection therewith. That notwithstanding, Claimant takes the position that although he is no longer entitled to receive damages award in this action, he has nevertheless prevailed in this action as Defendant, through their acceptance of the administrative claim in full, has acknowledged liability (emphasis added)” (Claimant’s Opposition, 19). Accordingly, claimant argues that under Court of Claims Act Section 11-a (2), he is entitled to reimbursement of the $50.00 filing fee that he paid to file his claim in the Court of Claims because he prevailed on his claim. Claimant further argues that, but for the conduct of DOCCS and its failure to timely address claimant’s administrative facility personal property claim, claimant would not have incurred the expense of filing a claim in the Court of Claims. In reply, the State disagrees with claimant’s characterization that he has “prevailed in this action” (Reply Affirmation, 3). Rather, the State argues that claimant prevailed in his administrative facility personal property claim against DOCCS and that claimant did not in fact prevail in his Court of Claims action. Accordingly, the State maintains that claimant cannot recover under Court of Claims Act Section 11-a for the filing fee that he paid to file a claim in the Court of Claims. Analysis Court of Claims Act Section 11-a provides: “1. The clerk of the court of claims shall require for the filing of a claim a fee of fifty dollars. The fee shall be payable in advance, unless a motion, affidavit, or certification pursuant to section eleven hundred one of the civil practice law and rules is filed with the claim, in which case the provisions of such section shall be applicable. 2. The court shall award to a prevailing claimant as a taxable disbursement the actual amount of any fee paid to file the claim (emphasis added).” The Court of Appeals has been instructive as to how courts are to interpret the meaning of a statute (see Matter of Anonymous v. Molik, 32 NY3d 30, 37 [2018]). In that regard, the Court of Appeals has directed that a statute “must be construed as a whole” and “its various sections must be considered together and with reference to each other” (People v. Mobil Oil Corp., 48 NY2d 192, 199 [1979]). Further, the Court of Appeals has held that, generally, the “literal language of a statute” is controlling unless “the plain intent and purpose of a statute would otherwise be defeated” (Bright Homes v. Wright, 8 NY2d 157, 161-162 [1960]). Upon the Court’s review of Court of Claims Act Section 11-a as a whole, the Court finds that the plain meaning of the literal language of Court of Claims Act Section 11-a that, “[t]he court shall award to a prevailing claimant…the actual amount of any fee paid to file the claim” indicates that the Court shall award the filing fee incurred by filing a claim in the Court of Claims to a claimant who has in fact prevailed on the claim filed (see Sanders v. State of New York, 57 Misc 3d 1211[A] [Ct Cl 2017]). In the instant case, the Court never had the opportunity to address the merits of the claim filed in the Court of Claims because claimant settled his administrative facility personal property claim and agreed to have the within action dismissed on the merits. Thus, the Court has not made any determination that claimant is in fact the “prevailing claimant” on the claim (Court of Claims Act §11-a [2]). Rather, claimant settled his administrative facility personal property claim with DOCCS and signed a release agreeing to the dismissal on the merits of any claim for damages, arising out of the facility personal property claim, that was filed in the Court of Claims. Thus, the Court finds that the claimant does not fall within the literal terms of the statute because he is not a “prevailing claimant” in the Court of Claims (id.). Therefore, claimant is not entitled to an award by the Court of the filing fee pursuant to Court of Claims Act Section 11-a. Contrary to the arguments advanced by claimant, the Court finds that Court of Claims Act Section 11-a does not contemplate that the Court award the amount of the filing fee paid to a claimant who has not had his claim adjudicated in the Court of Claims and agreed to the dismissal of his Court of Claims action on the merits as part of a settlement with DOCCS during the administrative process. In light of the Court’s ruling, it is not necessary to address the other ground advanced by the State for dismissal of the claim. Accordingly, the State’s motion to dismiss Claim No. 138821 is hereby GRANTED. Dated: March 7, 2024
