Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Stephen S. Gottlieb, J.), entered May 22, 2006. The order granted the motion by defendants Pearlman, Apat & Futterman, LLP, Martin M. Seinfeld, Gilbert J. Serrano, Lynn Sirotkin and Ventura Valle, and the cross motion by the Honorable Howard G. Lane, to dismiss the complaint.

Order affirmed without costs.

The instant action was commenced in Civil Court by the pro se plaintiff to recover the sum of $25,000 for "damage caused to automobile." Plaintiff named as defendants
the law firm of Pearlman, Apat & Futterman, LLP and attorneys employed by said law firm, Martin M. Seinfeld, Gilbert J. Serrano and Lynn Sirotkin. Said law firm represented co-defendant Ventura Valle, plaintiff's ex-wife, in a divorce proceeding and partition action against plaintiff. In addition, although apparently never served with a summons and complaint, the Honorable Howard G. Lane received a copy of a "Notice of the Plaintiff's Claim and Notice of Intention to Sue for Damages" as well as a "Notice of Non-Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct" containing the same index number as the instant action wherein Judge Lane was accused of various improprieties.

Thereafter, defendants Pearlman, Apat & Futterman, LLP, Martin M. Seinfeld, Gilbert J. Serrano, Lynn Sirotkin and Ventura Valle moved to dismiss the complaint and the Honorable Howard G. Lane cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. It is uncontroverted that said parties were never involved in an automobile accident with plaintiff and the only interaction defendants [*2]Pearlman, Apat & Futterman, LLP, Martin M. Seinfeld, Gilbert J. Serrano and Lynn Sirotkin had with plaintiff was the fact that they successfully represented defendant Ventura Valle in the divorce proceeding and partition action. Moreover, there has been no showing of a viable cause of action against plaintiff's former wife. Thus, as plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against the aforementioned parties, the court below properly dismissed the complaint against them.

Further, the only interaction which the Honorable Howard G. Lane had with plaintiff was in his capacity as a Judge of the Civil Court when, by order dated January 25, 2006, he denied plaintiff's request for issuance of subpoenas as well as his application for an order to show cause. It does not appear that the action was ever actually instituted against Judge Lane. However, the court treated the matter as if Judge Lane were a party. Assuming that Judge Lane was a defendant in the action, the court properly granted his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is well settled that actions against state officers acting in their official capacity in the exercise of governmental functions are deemed to be, in essence, claims against the State and, therefore, must be commenced in the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]; Matter of Gebman v Pataki, 256 AD2d 854 [1998]). Accordingly, the Civil Court was not the proper forum for a cause of action against the Honorable Howard G. Lane with regard to any acts performed in his official capacity

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 12, 2007