New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LYNCH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-011-567, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-65148


Synopsis


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

Case Information

UID:
2002-011-567
Claimant(s):
RONALD LYNCH, 99 A 3773
Claimant short name:
LYNCH
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-65148
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Ronald Lynch, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Saul Aronson, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 4, 2002
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has moved for permission to late file a claim based on the same factual

allegations of harassment by correction officers employed by the State.

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. The explanation offered by claimant, that he miscalculated the amount of time which he had to file, while understandable does not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing.

Other factors to be considered are whether Defendant had notice of the essential facts of the claim and an opportunity to investigate. Numerous formal grievances filed by claimant establish that defendant had notice and an opportunity to investigate. In addition, no apparent prejudice has resulted from 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). The claim of harassment is an attempt to allege a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for public policy reasons, such a cause of action is not available against the State (Brown v State of New York, 125 AD2d 750, 752). Therefore, the proposed claim does not have an appearance of merit.

On balance consideration of the factors in Court of Claims Act §10(6) weigh against granting the motion and accordingly, it is denied.


September 4, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

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


Papers Submitted:

1. Notice of Motion dated April 30, 2002
2. Affidavit in Support sworn to the 30th day of April, 2002 with exhibits annexed
3. Affirmation in Opposition of Saul Aronson, Esq. dated May 8, 2002
4. Unsworn Reply of Ronald Lynch filed on May 16, 2002