New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GLASGOW v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-014-509, , Motion No. M-62406


Synopsis


Application for late claim denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-014-509
Claimant(s):
RAUL JULES GLASGOW
Claimant short name:
GLASGOW
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-62406
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
Raul Jules Glasgow, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 14, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on the claimant's application for permission to file a late claim: Notice of Motion, papers annexed; Affirmation in Opposition.


The claimant seeks permission to file a late claim in connection with an automobile accident involving himself and an officer of the "NYPD Traffic Dept."

Although the 90-day period to serve and file a claim or to serve a notice of intention has lapsed, Court of Claims Act §10(3), this application was filed within the relevant statute of limitation so the Court has jurisdiction to grant relief under §10(6), and has considered the factors listed therein. See, Bay Terrace Cooperative Section IV, Inc. v New York State Employees' Retirement System Policemen's and Firemen's Retirement System, 55 NY2d 979, 981.

The claimant has not offered any excuse for the delay, nearly a year, in filing the claim.

The principal basis for the defendant's opposition to the application is that the allegation against an officer of the "NYPD Traffic Dept." is made against an employee of the City of New York, for whom the State is not responsible, so that the proposed claim is not cognizable in this Court. From a reading of the claimant's submission it is at best unclear whether the officer involved is alleged to be an employee of the State of New York or of the City of New York. The interpretation by counsel for the defendant is not unreasonable. Under the circumstances, the claimant has not demonstrated that the proposed claim appears to be meritorious.

Consideration of the statutory factors of notice, opportunity to investigate and prejudice to the defendant would only be pertinent if the allegations were against a State employee.

It may be that the claimant has another available remedy, against the City of New York, over whom this Court does not have jurisdiction.

Having considered the relevant statutory factors, Bay Terrace, supra, the application is denied.


February 14, 2001
New York, New York

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