New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LAMBERT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-014-514, , Motion No. M-61492


Synopsis


Application for permission to file a late claim, based upon allegations concerning a District Attorney, is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-014-514
Claimant(s):
JUSTIN LAMBERT
Claimant short name:
LAMBERT
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-61492
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
Base & Associates, P.C.By: Nick Base
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 8, 2000
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on claimant's application for permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(6): Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, Affidavit, and Exhibits annexed; Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibit annexed.


This application for permission to file a late claim concerns an automobile accident which occurred on September 17, 1999, involving an automobile operated by the claimant, and another automobile. Although the proposed claim alleges that the other automobile was "owned, managed and controlled by the State of New York, the New York County DA Office and Gavin L. Davilar," it is clear from the submissions in support of the application, including counsel's affirmation, the claimant's affidavit, and an exhibit which purports to be from the Department of Motor Vehicles, that the other automobile was registered to the New York County District Attorney's Office.

Allegations concerning the actions of a District Attorney are not cognizable in this Court, since they are local, and not State, officials. Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60; Court of Claims Act §9. As such, the proposed claim, stated to be against the State of New York, is without merit, the primary factor among those to be considered on this application. Court of Claims Act §10(6).

The failure to demonstrate that a proposed claim appears to be meritorious weighs heavily against granting permission to file a late claim. McCarthy v New York State Canal Corporation, 244 AD2d 57, lv denied, 92 NY2d 815; Klingler v State of New York, 213 AD2d 378; Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254; Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729.

Under the circumstances, the application is denied.


June 8, 2000
New York, New York

HON. S. MICHAEL NADEL
Judge of the Court of Claims