New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BROCK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-011-515, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-64367


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to file a late claim is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2002-011-515
Claimant(s):
KEITH BROCK, 99 A 0260
Claimant short name:
BROCK
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-64367
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Keith Brock, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Eileen E. Bryant, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 19, 2002
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


In the proposed claim, claimant has alleged that money was withdrawn from his inmateaccount without his authorization and that employees of defendant lost a pair of his boots. A final determination regarding the institutional claim he filed concerning the unauthorized withdrawals was rendered on March 12, 2001. The final determination regarding the other loss was issued on March 26, 2001.

When considering a motion for permission to late file a claim the court is required to address six factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act §10(6). The first of those factors is whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing. Claimant alleges that he failed to serve his claim by certified mail and later withdrew the claim. However, he does not offer an explanation as to why he failed to serve the claim in a proper manner.

Other factors to be considered are whether Defendant had notice of the essential facts of the claim and an opportunity to investigate. By reason of the institutional claims filed by claimant, defendant had notice and an opportunity to investigate. There is no apparent prejudice to defendant as a result of the delay in filing.

Also to be considered is whether the proposed claim has an appearance of merit. A claim is said to have merit when it is not patently groundless, frivolous or legally defective and there is reason to believe that a valid cause of action exists (Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1). On that basis, the allegations in the proposed claim provide the claim with the necessary appearance of merit.

No adequate alternate remedy is available.

On balance consideration of the factors in CCA §10(6) weigh in favor of granting the motion. Claimant is to serve and file the proposed claim in the manner required by Court of Claims Act §11 and 11-a within thirty days of service upon him of a file-stamped copy of this order.


February 19, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

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



Papers Submitted:

  1. Notice of Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim dated November 11, 2001
  2. Affidavit in Support of Keith Brock sworn to the 11th day of November, 2001 with attachments