New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

QUILLIAM v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-016-062, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-61944


Motion for reargument of denied late claim motion that was denied.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLPBy: Jeffrey S. Lisabeth, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Alan B. Berkowitz, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 17, 2000
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:
Affirmed 723 NYS2d 389
See also (multicaptioned case)


In motion no. M-61113, Bryan Quilliam sought permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). The motion was denied in an order filed on May 16, 2000. Quilliam's proposed claim arose from an accident in which a stack of shelving boards fell on him while he was working as a laborer for J. Kokalakis Contracting, Inc. at the State University at Stonybrook. This is Quilliam's motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221.

CPLR 2221(d)(2) provides in relevant part that a motion for leave to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion . . ."

First, claimant asserts that in reviewing the merit factor set forth in §10.6 of the Act, "the Court fail[ed] to take note of the elevated position of the core board shelving which the claimant has indicated fell upon him . . ." See ¶12 of the June 19, 2000 affirmation of Jeffrey S. Lisabeth (the "Lisabeth Aff."). Claimant is apparently suggesting that he has a meritorious claim under Labor Law §240, commonly referred to as the scaffold law. Nothing in claimant's original moving papers referred to the boards being in an "elevated" position so as to involve an elevation differential as contemplated by §240. See, e.g., Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 577 NYS2d 219 (1991). Beyond this, Quilliam has provided no other details as to how the Court allegedly misapprehended or misunderstood any facts or law with regard to the merit of his claim.

Next, claimant argues that the state had notice of the essential facts constituting this claim. Claimant has essentially repeated the arguments made in his moving papers. No particular misapprehension or misunderstanding of the facts or law by the Court has been identified.

Finally, with regard to excuse, aside from the reiteration of the arguments made on the underlying motion, claimant suggests that the Court misapprehended the law, asserting that "[i]t has been held that a late claimant's excuse need only be reasonable and it is not necessary that the claimant establish his complete physical or mental inability to file on time." See ¶31 of the Lisabeth Aff. The cases cited by claimant in support of this position -- Carmen v State of New York, 49 AD2d 965, 373 NYS2d 698 (3d Dept 1975) and Stabile v State of New York, 12 AD2d 698, 207 NYS2d 509 (3d Dept 1960) -- were considered in the prior motion. Haley v Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, 133 AD2d 527, 519 NYS2d 900 (4th Dept 1987) did not deal with §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act; the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over the Dormitory Authority, which in that case was sued in Supreme Court.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-61944 is denied.

August 17, 2000
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and Exhibits A-E; defendant's affirmation in opposition; and claimant's reply affirmation.