Summary
The New York Court of Claims addresses a motion concerning the proper venue for a claim alleging sexual abuse at a residential center in Oneida County. The court holds that venue is assigned by the Court of Claims Clerk to the district where the claim arose, and that the claimant's designation of Nassau County had no effect. The motion to change venue is denied as moot, and the claim remains venued in the Utica District; the court also strikes claimant's counsel's opposition affirmation for citing apparently fictitious cases.
Court
New York Court of Claims
Jurisdiction
New York Court of Claims
Decision date
February 10, 2026
Docket number
Claim No. 144615; Motion No. M-103087
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether a claimant in the Court of Claims may designate the place of trial in the summons or otherwise select the venue.
- Whether the State's motion to change venue was necessary or presented a live controversy where the claim had already been assigned to the Utica District based on where the claim arose.
- Whether the court should strike an opposition affirmation containing apparently fictitious or unsupported case citations.
Holdings
- A claimant does not select the place of trial in the Court of Claims; the Chief Clerk assigns a claim to the district in which the claim arose under the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims.
- The claim was properly assigned to the Utica District because the alleged misconduct occurred primarily in Oneida County, which is within that district.
- A claimant seeking to change the assigned venue must make a motion or cross-motion showing that the current venue is improper; claimant made no such motion.
- The court struck claimant's counsel's opposition affirmation from the record and declined to consider it because counsel failed to substantiate apparently fictitious case citations and cited authorities that did not support the arguments presented.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…