New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SPIRLES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-011-554, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-63241


Synopsis


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

Case Information

UID:
2001-011-554
Claimant(s):
WILLIE SPIRLES
Claimant short name:
SPIRLES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-63241
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Willie Spirles, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Michael C. Rizzo, Esq., Assistant Attorney General)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 29, 2001
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has moved for permission to late file a claim. The proposed claim is based onallegations that a water pipe in claimant's cell burst, flooding his cell and destroying a copy of the transcript of his criminal trial.

Under Court of Claims Act §10(9), effective December 7, 1999, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services may bring a claim in this court for recovery of damages for injury to, or loss of, personal property only after the inmate has exhausted the administrative remedy established by the Department. The claim must then be filed and served within 120 days after the administrative remedy has been exhausted. Under the rule in effect before December 7, 1999, State inmates were not required to pursue an administrative remedy and the claim had to be filed and served within 90 days after accrual of the claim.

The proposed claim is based on damage to personal property and is alleged to have accrued on August 4, 2000. Though the papers submitted in support of the motion indicate that an institutional claim was filed, it is not clear that the remedy has been exhausted. Claimant, in fact, admits in his affidavit that the superintendent of the facility appointed another employee to investigate the claim but according to claimant he has not yet heard from that individual.

Inasmuch as no cause of action exists until the administrative remedy has been exhausted, the proposed claim is without an appearance of merit. Claimant should either first exhaust his administrative remedy or re-file the application for permission to late file upon a proper showing that the administrative remedy has been exhausted. The motion is denied.

May 29, 2001
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Submitted:

  1. Notice of Motion filed on March 16, 2001
  2. Affidavit in Support sworn to the 8th day of March, 2001 with exhibits
  3. Affidavit in Opposition of Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. sworn to the 7th day of March, 2001
  4. Answering Affidavit of Willie Spirles (unsworn) filed on March 22, 2001