New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WHITE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-009-23, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-64870


Synopsis


Claimant's application for permission to serve and file a late claim was denied without prejudice.

Case Information

UID:
2002-009-23
Claimant(s):
JOHN H. WHITE The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court.
Claimant short name:
WHITE
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-64870
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
SHANLEY LAW OFFICES
BY: P. Michael Shanley, Esq.,Of Counsel.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Glenn C. King, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 22, 2002
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant seeks permission to serve and file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act, § 10(6).

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit of John H. White, Affidavit in Support of P. Michael Shanley, Esq., with Exhibits 1,2,3


Affirmation in Opposition 4

In order to determine an application for permission to serve and file a late claim, the Court must consider, among other relevant factors, the six factors set forth in § 10(6) of the Court of Claims Act. The factors set forth therein are: (1) whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; (2) whether the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (3) whether the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (4) whether the claim appears meritorious; (5) whether substantial prejudice resulted from the failure to timely file and the failure to serve upon the Attorney General a timely claim or notice of intention to file a claim; and (6) whether any other remedy is available. The Court is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to permit the late filing of a claim (see, Matter of Gavigan v State of New York, 176 AD2d 1117).

In this matter, however, it is not necessary to consider all of these factors. A review of the proposed claim submitted with claimant's moving papers (see Exhibit B to Items 1,2,3) reveals, in this Court's opinion, no recognizable cause of action against the State. In essence, claimant asserts that he was stopped by a New York State Police officer for an alleged vehicle and traffic infraction on or about March 11, 2000, that he was then arrested, arraigned, and incarcerated until March 14, 2000, when bail was posted by family members. Such facts are clearly insufficient to establish any cause of action for damages against the State.

Since it would be futile to allow a claim in which no cause of action has been asserted, claimant's application is hereby denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-64870 is hereby DENIED, without prejudice, and claimant, in his discretion, is hereby permitted to resubmit another application for the same relief, within 30 days from the date of filing of this decision and order.


May 22, 2002
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims