New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-005-570, , Motion No. M-60874


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for permission to file a late claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-005-570
Claimant(s):
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON
Claimant short name:
JOHNSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

Motion number(s):
M-60874
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Donald J. Corbett, Jr.
Claimant's attorney:
Johnathan JohnsonPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Timothy P. Mulvey, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 1, 2000
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 4, were read on motion by Claimant for permission to file a late claim:

1, 2 Notice of Motion and Affidavit Annexed
  1. Opposing Affirmation
  2. Reply Letter from Claimant
Upon the foregoing papers, this motion is denied.

Claimant seeks permission to file a late claim herein relating to an incident occurring on or about December 21, 1997, wherein he alleges that he was intentionally deprived of regular meals for some seven days. His proposed claim seeks damages because he was punitively given a restricted menu rather than meals prepared for the General Population.

The Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that no proposed claim was appended to the papers served upon it by the Claimant. Claimant replies that he did serve a copy with his papers and since he did so he would not supply another.

It matters not. The motion is denied. First, Claimant totally fails to address the statutory factors of §10(6) of the Court of Claims Act. Second, the proposed claim does not allege a claim that appears to be meritorious (see Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1, 11). Finally, to the extent that Claimant complains of intentional conduct by the Defendant, it appears that his motion is not timely made within the time constraints of CPLR article 2, as required by §10(6).

The motion is denied.


November 1, 2000
Rochester, New York

HON. DONALD J. CORBETT, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims