New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TAYLOR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-016-009, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-62762


Pro se late claim motion was denied. Failed to comply with §11b; was incomprehensible.

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:
Don Taylor
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Earl F. Gialanella, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 6, 2001
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is the motion of Don Taylor for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). No proposed claim is contained in Taylor's papers and it is difficult to discern what the basis of such a claim would be; Taylor makes wide-ranging allegations including the following: that he was "abducted" and taken to Sullivan Correctional Facility, that "they violated civil rights," that "my case is also Double Jeopardy," that "I became a diabetic patient," that he saw an officer wrapped in plastic, that he is being provided with mental health treatment although he does not need it, and that he should have been released after his first Parole Board Hearing in 1995.[1]

In determining whether to grant this motion, ordinarily, the six factors enumerated in the Act must be considered. The factors are not necessarily exhaustive, nor is the presence or absence of any particular one controlling[2]: whether (1) the defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) the defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) the defendant was substantially prejudiced; (4) the claimant has any other available remedy; (5) the delay was excusable and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious.

In this case, however, a threshold issue must be addressed. Section 11.b of the Court of Claims Act requires that the particulars of a claim be sufficiently detailed to enable the State to promptly determine the existence and extent of its liability. Sinski v State of New York, 265 AD2d 319, 696 NYS2d 70 (2d Dept 1999). In this case, no proposed claim has been submitted and the papers that have been submitted are largely incoherent. In any event, they fail to set forth sufficient factual detail to assist in determining how defendant is allegedly liable. Compliance with §11 of the Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the maintenance of a claim in this Court. See, e..g., Cannon v State of New York, 163 Misc 2d 623, 622 NYS2d 177 (Ct Cl 1994). In view of Taylor's failure to meet the jurisdictional prerequisite of §11 of the Act, it is unnecessary to consider each of the statutory factors set forth in §10.6 of the Act. Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions[3], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-62762 is denied.

February 6, 2001
  1. abNew York, New York
  2. ab
  4. abJudge of the Court of Claims
  5. ab

  1. [1]It should be noted that virtually identical allegations were made in claim no. 101993, which was dismissed in a Decision and Order dated October 17, 2000. Taylor also made a previous late claim motion on the same such facts which was denied in the October 17, 2000 Decision and Order.
See Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV, Inc. v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys. Policemen's and Firemen's Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979, 449 NYS2d 185 (1982); Scarver v State of New York, 233 AD2d 858, 649 NYS2d 280 (4th Dept 1996).
  1. [3]The following were reviewed: claimant's November 8, 2000 "Notice of Motion," claimant's November 13, 2000 "Notice of Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim; two November 13, 2000 documents from claimant entitled "Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim," claimant's November 15, 2000 "Affidavit in Support of Motion," claimant's November 15, 2000 "Affidavit in Support of Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim,"undesignated exhibits relating to claim no. 101993; claimant's January 22, 2001 "Notice of Motion," claimant's January 22, 2001 "Affidavit in Support of Motion," and claimant's December 6, 2000 "In Conclusion the Relevant Documents Affidavit of Don A. Taylor"; and defendant's January 4, 2001 "Affirmation in Opposition."