Papers Considered: Notice of Motion, Affirmation & Exhibits Annexed 1-4 Affidavit in Opposition & Exhibit Annexed 5-6 Reply Affirmation 7 Sur-Reply to Motion to Dismiss and Default Judgment & Exhibits 8-9 DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing papers and for the following reasons, the Motion by Defendant, State of New York (hereinafter “State”) to dismiss the “Article 78 Verified Petition” (hereinafter referred to as “Claim”) by Claimant Linnea Wexler (hereinafter “claimant”), is granted in accordance with the following decision. On November 25, 2023, the claimant filed a 50-page Claim, accompanied by 187 pages of voluminous exhibits, against the State for judgment “pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to challenge the conduct, actions and inactions” of New York County Family Court Judge Gigi N. Parris, as well as other court employees, New York City, Suffolk County, Town of Southampton, District Attorney and State agencies, embroiled in pending acrimonious family offense, custody and visitation proceedings between her and her former partner, Matthew Parrott, Esq., involving their six year-old daughter, V.P.W. (Claim, at 3, 8) The crux of claimant’s challenges concern Family Court orders, including Temporary Orders of Protection issued by Judge Parris, the most recent expiring on June 12, 2024, that have resulted in her staying away and not being able to visit with her child unsupervised since March 2023 (see Claim, Exh. C). In the Claim, she makes numerous allegations against the State and its agencies, including the Family Court, Appellate Division, City of New York and New York State Commission of Judicial Conduct, that, basically, they have all condoned and reinforced the alleged fraud committed against her by Mr. Parrott and counsel in the courts. In addition to taking issue with many of the events in her custody litigation, the claimant also decries the state of the Family Court itself and District Attorneys in New York. As a result, the claimant asks in her Claim for judgment to be entered pursuant to Article 78, directing, among other things: “a mistrial” of the Family Court proceedings; transfer to the Supreme Court with no further involvement by Judge Parris or her Court Attorney Ashley Mullin, Esq.; dismissal of Lawyer’s for Children as Attorney for the Child; removal of Judge Parris from the bench; an award of sole custody of V.P.W. to her; no contact orders of protection against the father, his attorney and the AFC; that the State immediately take over supervision, control, administration, management and oversight of all Family Courts; and revocation of all ex-parte and sua sponte orders followed by a full evidentiary hearing (see Claim at 43-46,
