Long v. State of New York, 7 N.Y.3d 269 (2006)

Claims against the State for unjust conviction and imprisonment require strict statutory compliance, including personal verification by the claimant, and cannot be verified by an attorney unless explicitly permitted by statute.

Summary

Lee Long brought a claim against the State of New York for unjust conviction and imprisonment. While the Court of Appeals found that Long met the substantive requirements for such a claim, it affirmed the dismissal because Long’s attorney, rather than Long himself, verified the claim. The court emphasized that because such suits are against the State and waive sovereign immunity, the statutory requirements, including personal verification, must be strictly followed. The Court distinguished this specific verification requirement from the general verification rules applicable in Supreme Court.

Facts

In 1995, Lee Long was convicted of rape, robbery, and sexual abuse and sentenced to concurrent prison terms. In 1999, the District Attorney’s office conducted a post-conviction investigation, leading Long to move to vacate his conviction. In June 2000, the Supreme Court granted the motion, stating that Long was “the wrong man.” In May 2002, the court clarified that the vacatur was based on newly discovered evidence under CPL 440.10(1)(g), and the indictment was dismissed in the interest of justice. Long filed a claim against the State for unjust imprisonment, which was verified by his attorney, not himself.

Procedural History

Long filed a claim in the Court of Claims, which was dismissed as untimely and improperly verified. The Appellate Division affirmed, but on the grounds that Long failed to demonstrate that both the vacatur of judgment and dismissal of the indictment were based on grounds specified in CPL 440.10(1). The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a claim for unjust conviction requires that both the vacatur of the judgment and the dismissal of the indictment be based on grounds specified in CPL 440.10(1)?
2. Whether an attorney can verify a claim for unjust conviction on behalf of the claimant, even if the claimant is not in the same county as the attorney?

Holding

1. No, because the statute only requires that the vacatur of the judgment be based on the grounds specified in Court of Claims Act § 8-b(3)(b)(ii).
2. No, because Court of Claims Act § 8-b(4) requires the claim to be verified by the claimant personally.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division erred in requiring both the vacatur and the dismissal to be based on CPL 440.10(1) grounds. The court reasoned that the statute requires only the vacatur to be based on such grounds. The court noted that the grounds specified in CPL 440.10(1) apply solely to the vacatur of a judgment, and it would be unworkable to require the dismissal to occur under those bases. The court stated that construing the provision to require a claimant to establish that the instrument was dismissed pursuant to CPL 440.10 would impose an impossible condition and create a self-contradictory statute.

Regarding verification, the court relied on the plain language of Court of Claims Act § 8-b(4), which states that “[t]he claim shall be verified by the claimant.” The court emphasized that suits against the State require strict statutory compliance. The court distinguished this case from Lepkowski v. State of New York, where the general verification requirement in Court of Claims Act § 11(b) allowed for CPLR procedures to apply. In contrast, the verification requirement in § 8-b(4) is specific to unjust conviction claims and does not incorporate CPLR rules. Therefore, the attorney’s verification was insufficient, and the claim was properly dismissed. The court emphasized that “Because suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed”.