Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
H.F. v. State
(2026)
Case details
Full caption
H.F. v. The STATE of New York
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
H.F.
v.
State,
254
N.Y.S.3d
898
(2026)
2026
N.Y.
Slip
Op.
26040
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
1
254
N.Y.S.3d
898
Court
of
Claims
of
New
York.
H.F.,
Claimant,
v.
The
STATE
of
New
York
,
Defendant.
Claim
No.
144615
|
Decided
on
February
10,
2026
Editor's
Note:
This
document
contains
discussion
of
unverified
citations,
likely
generated
by
AI
tools
used
by
a
party
or
counsel.
These
citations
are
not
attributable
to
the
Court.
The
unverified
citations
have
been
preserved
as
part
of
the
official
record,
but
links
are
unavailable.
Background:
Claimant
brought
action
against
the
State
for
alleged
sexual
abuse
she
suffered
while
residing
at
juvenile
detention
facility.
The
State
filed
motion
for
change
of
venue.
Holdings:
The
Court
of
Claims,
Perer,
J.,
held
that:
to
address
conduct
by
claimant's
counsel
in
citing
apparently
fictitious
cases,
and
to
deter
similar
future
conduct,
court
would
strike
counsel's
affirmation,
in
opposition
to
the
State's
motion,
from
the
record,
and
venue
of
claimant's
claim
against
the
State
was
proper
in
the
Utica
District
which
encompassed
county
where
facility
was
located.
Motion
denied.
Attorneys
and
Law
Firms
For
Claimant:
Law
Office
of
Kenneth
M.
Mollins,
P.C.,
By:
Timothy
Manning
,
Esq.
For
Defendant:
LETITIA
JAMES,
New
York
State
Attorney
General,
By:
Ramona
L.
Rabeler
,
Esq.,
Assistant
Attorney
General
Opinion
Abby
R.
Perer,
J.
*899
Claimant
H.F.
is
pursuing
a
Claim
for
alleged
sexual
abuse
she
suffered
while
residing
at
the
Taberg
Residential
Center
for
Girls,
located
in
Taberg,
New
York,
in
Oneida
County.
With
her
Claim,
the
Claimant
filed
and
served
a
summons
that
included
the
following
language:
“[Claimant]
designate[s]
Nassau
County
as
Place
of
Trial”
(Claim
No.
144615
[“Claim”],
Summons
at
p.
1).
The
Defendant
State
of
New
York
(“State”
or
“Defendant”)
brings
the
instant
motion
to
change
venue
to
Oneida
County.
Claimant's
counsel
responded,
relying
on
apparently
fictitious
cases
to
argue
venue
is
proper
in
Nassau
County
because,
among
other
reasons,
it
is
where
Claimant
resides.
The
State
replied,
arguing
that
the
Uniform
Rules
for
the
Court
of
Claims
vest
the
Clerk
of
Court
with
the
power
to
designate
venue
for
this
Claim.
As
explained
below,
because
the
Claim
H.F.
v.
State,
254
N.Y.S.3d
898
(2026)
2026
N.Y.
Slip
Op.
26040
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
2
was
originally
assigned,
and
remains
assigned,
to
the
Utica
District
of
the
Court
of
Claims,
which
encompasses
Oneida
County,
the
State's
motion
is
denied
as
moot.
Use
of
Fictitious
Cases
by
Claimant's
Counsel
Before
turning
to
Defendant's
motion,
the
Court
must
address
Claimant's
counsel's
use
of
fictitious
case
cites
in
their
filing
with
this
Court.
On
January
21,
2026,
Claimant's
counsel,
Timothy
Manning
from
the
Law
Office
of
Kenneth
M.
Mollins,
P.C.,
filed
an
Affirmation
in
Opposition
to
Defendant's
motion
(“Manning
Affirmation”).
When
reviewing
the
Manning
Affirmation,
the
Court
was
unable
to
locate
four
Court
of
Claims
cases
cited
therein.
In
addition,
multiple
other
authorities
cited
in
the
Manning
Affirmation
did
not
appear
to
support
the
arguments
being
made,
including,
inter
alia
,
Court
of
Claims
Act
§
9
(2)
(which
was
cited
by
Mr.
Manning
for
the
proposition
that
venue
is
proper
where
a
claimant
resides,
even
though
the
text
of
the
section
says
nothing
about
venue
or
a
claimant's
residence)
and
Lepkowski
v.
State
of
New
York,
1
N.Y.3d
201,
770
N.Y.S.2d
696,
802
N.E.2d
1094
(2003)
.
As
a
result,
on
January
28,
2025,
the
Court
wrote
to
Claimant's
counsel
requesting
copies
of
the
four
Court
of
Claims
cases
that
could
not
be
located.
Claimant's
counsel
failed
to
respond
to
that
communication.
Claimant's
counsel's
use
of
apparently
fictitious
cases
is
not
only
a
violation
of
their
ethical
obligations,
but
a
deeply
troubling
act
of
disrespect
to
their
client,
opposing
counsel,
and
the
court
process
(
see
Deutsche
Bank
Natl.
Trust
Co.
v.
LeTennier
,
–––
A.D.3d
––––,
250
N.Y.S.3d
260
[3d
Dept.
2026]
[“there
are
many
harms
associated
with
the
submission
of
fake
cases
that
extend
beyond
merely
wasting
the
time
and
money
of
the
opposing
party,
but
also
in
taking
up
the
court's
*900
resources
to
evaluate
and
resolve
the
deception”];
Grymes
Dev.
Co.
v.
Fodera
,
88
Misc.3d
767,
769–70,
773,
245
N.Y.S.3d
863
[Sup.
Ct.,
Richmond
County
2025]
,
citing
Rules
of
Prof
Conduct
[
22
NYCRR
1200.0
]
rule
3.3
[a]
[1]
[“At
a
minimum,
a
lawyer
has
an
ethical
obligation
and
duty
to
refrain
from
knowingly
make
a
false
statement
of
fact
or
law
to
the
Court.”]).
“[E]very
attorney
has
an
ongoing
responsibility
to
review
and
ensure
the
accuracy
of
filings
with
this
and
other
courts.
This
includes
checking
that
all
case
law
cited
in
a
brief
actually
exists
and
supports
the
points
being
made”
(
Augustin
v.
Formula
3
Brooklyn
Inc.
,
86
Misc.
3d
1236[A],
2025
N.Y.
Slip
Op.
51113[U],
*4,
2025
WL
2006010
[Sup.
Ct.,
Kings
County
2025]
[citation
omitted]).
To
address
the
conduct
by
Claimant's
counsel,
and
hopefully
deter
similar
future
conduct,
the
Court
will
strike
the
Manning
Affirmation
from
the
record
and
will
not
consider
it
for
purposes
of
deciding
Defendant's
motion.
In
the
event
Claimant's
counsel
utilizes
fictitious
cases
in
any
other
filings
before
this
Court,
the
Court
will,
at
a
minimum,
impose
economic
sanctions
and
refer
counsel
to
the
appropriate
attorney
grievance
committee
(
see
22
NYCRR
130-1.1
;
Deutsche
Bank
Natl.
Trust
Co.
,
–––
A.D.3d
––––,
250
N.Y.S.3d
260
;
Grymes
Dev.
Co.
,
88
Misc.3d
767,
770,
772–75,
245
N.Y.S.3d
863
[“A
motion
predicated
on
a
‘non-existent
case’
is
a
frivolous
filing
within
the
meaning
of
the
Rules
of
the
Chief
Administrator
for
the
imposition
of
sanctions.”]).
Defendant's
Motion
(M-103087)
Turning
to
the
substance
of
Defendant's
motion
to
change
venue,
the
Court
must
begin
by
explaining
the
venue
assignment
process
in
the
Court
of
Claims.
The
Court
of
Claims
is
divided
into
eight
districts,
with
each
district
encompassing
multiple
counties
(
see
22
NYCRR
206.4
[a]).
The
Utica
District
encompasses,
among
other
counties,
Oneida
County
(
see
id
.).
Upon
the
filing
of
a
claim,
the
Chief
Clerk
of
the
Court
of
Claims
assigns
the
claim
to
the
district
in
which
the
claim
arose
(
see
id
.).
“[U]nlike
actions
commenced
in
State
Supreme
Court,
where
a
plaintiff
initially
designates
the
venue
of
his
lawsuit,
in
the
Court
of
Claims
the
claimant
does
not
have
any
part
in
selecting
the
place
of
trial”
(
Ken-Vil
Assoc.
Ltd.
Partnership
v.
New
York
State
Div.
of
Human
Rights
,
UID
No.
2012-030-566,
Claim
No.
120104
[Ct.
Cl.,
Scuccimarra,
J.,
Sept.
21,
2012];
see
Warney
v.
State
of
New
York
,
16
N.Y.3d
428,
435,
922
N.Y.S.2d
865,
947
N.E.2d
639
[2011]
[CPLR
only
applies
in
the
Court
of
Claims
to
issues
not
governed
by
the
Court
of
Claims
Act
or
Uniform
Rules
for
the
Court
of
Claims]).
Here,
the
alleged
misconduct
by
the
Defendant
occurred
primarily
within
Oneida
County
at
the
Taberg
Residential
Center
for
Girls
in
Taberg,
New
York
(
see
Claim
¶¶
7-38).
Accordingly,
the
Clerk
properly
assigned
this
Claim
to
the
Utica
District
(
see
22
NYCRR
206.4
[a]).
The
attempted
designation
of
Nassau
County
(or
the
New
York
District)
as
the
place
of
trial
has
no
effect
on
the
assignment
or
the
location
of
trial
(
see
Warney
,
16
N.Y.3d
428
at
434-435,
922
N.Y.S.2d
865,
947
N.E.2d
639
;
Court
H.F.
v.
State,
254
N.Y.S.3d
898
(2026)
2026
N.Y.
Slip
Op.
26040
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
3
of
Claims
Act
§
9
[9]
;
22
NYCRR
206.1
[c]).
Neither
Claimant
nor
the
Court
has
identified
any
real
precedent
suggesting
that
CPLR
503
or
509
apply
to
Court
of
Claims
cases
to
warrant
a
different
conclusion.
If
Claimant
wanted
to
request
a
change
of
venue
of
this
Claim,
Claimant
would
have
needed
to
make
a
motion
or
cross-motion
to
change
venue
(
see
*901
22
NYCRR
206.4
[b];
see
also
CPLR
510
),
showing
that
the
current
venue
is
improper.
Claimant
did
not
do
so.
Accordingly,
it
is
hereby
ORDERED
that
Defendant's
motion
for
change
of
venue
(M-103807)
is
DENIED
as
moot,
and
the
Claim
will
remain
venued
in
the
Utica
District.
Papers
Considered
:
Claim
No.
144615,
with
Summons,
dated
September
17,
2025.
Defendant's
Notice
of
Motion
to
Change
and/or
Designate
Proper
Venue,
dated
November
17,
2025.
Affirmation
of
Ramona
L.
Rabeler,
Esq.
in
Support
of
Defendant's
Motion
to
Change
and/or
Order
Designation
of
Proper
Venue,
dated
November
17,
2025,
with
attached
Exhibit
A.
Reply
Affirmation
of
Ramona
L.
Rabeler,
Esq.
in
Support
of
Defendant's
Motion
to
Change
and/or
Order
Designation
of
Proper
Venue,
dated
January
27,
2026.
Papers
Reviewed
but
Stricken
:
1.
Affirmation
of
Timothy
Manning,
Esq.
in
Opposition,
dated
January
21,
2026,
with
attached
Exhibit
1.
All
Citations
254
N.Y.S.3d
898,
2026
N.Y.
Slip
Op.
26040
End
of
Document
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access