New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DEJESUS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-004-530, Claim No. 102132, Motion No. M-62141


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2000-004-530
Claimant(s):
LUIS DeJESUS
Claimant short name:
DEJESUS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102132
Motion number(s):
M-62141
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JEROME F. HANIFIN
Claimant's attorney:
LUIS DEJESUS, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Earl F. GialanellaAssistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 19, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant moves to amend his Claim.


The following papers were considered by the Court:

Claim, filed March 15, 2000 1

Verified Answer, filed March 31, 2000 2


Decision and Order, Hanifin, J., Claim No. 102132
filed August 14, 2000 3

Notice of Motion, filed August 3, 2000 4


Affidavit of Luis DeJesus, in support of motion,
sworn to July 20, 2000, with attached exhibits 5

Proposed Amended Claim, sworn to July 20, 2000 6


Affirmation of Earl F. Gialanella, AAG, in opposition
to the motion, dated August 16, 2000 filed August 18, 2000 7


"Affirmation/Letter" of Luis De Jesus, in support of motion,
dated August 18, 2000, filed August 24, 2000 8




This Court previously, by Decision and Order filed August 14, 2000, granted Claimant permission to amend his Claim and increase the ad damnum clause from $100,000.00 to $1,325,520.00. In that same Decision and Order, this Court denied Claimant permission to add a cause of action for "negligence per se" as it would have been meaningless based on the allegations in the Claim (Paper No. 3).


Claimant in the instant motion seeks the same relief as above, and also seeks permission to add "relevant information with respect to the original Claim" (Paper No. 5, ¶ 5), which State's counsel characterizes as "a more detailed factual description of how the defendant was negligent and allegedly had notice of the dangerous condition causing his injury...." (Paper No. 7, ¶ 2)


For the reasons outlined in this Court's prior Decision and Order, Claimant is again denied permission to include a cause of action for "negligence per se". Claimant already had permission by the Court's prior Decision and Order to increase the ad damnum clause to $1,325,520.00. Unfortunately it appears that Claimant failed to follow the Court's directive to serve and file the amended Claim, with the increased ad damnum clause "in strict compliance with this Decision and Order within 30 days of the filing date thereof". [emphasis added] The Court will try one more, but only one more, time.

State's counsel has no objections to Claimant's "proposed amendments of a factual nature..." (Paper No. 7, ¶ 5)


In light of the foregoing, it is


ORDERED that the Claimant's Motion M-62141 is GRANTED and Claimant is directed to serve and file an amended Claim with the ad damnum clause increased to $1,325,520.00 and the additional factual allegations set forth in strict compliance with this Decision and Order within 30 days of the filing date thereof and is otherwise DENIED.




September 19, 2000
Binghamton, New York

HON. JEROME F. HANIFIN
Judge of the Court of Claims