New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ANDERSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-011-580, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-65314


Claimant's request for permission to late file a claim in denied.

Case Information

JOSEPH ANDERSON The court sua sponte amends the caption to reflect the only properly named defendant
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :
The court sua sponte amends the caption to reflect the only properly named defendant
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Joseph Anderson, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 10, 2002
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The proposed claim alleges that an employee of the Department of Correctional Services

falsely accused claimant of misconduct in an inmate misbehavior report. The determination of guilt on the charge was reversed on administrative appeal.

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. Here, claimant has not offered an 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. As claimant has not provided a copy of any argument he made in support of the administrative appeal and because the appeal, and the reason for reversal, could be based on something other than a determination that the charge was false, claimant has not established that the State had notice of, or an opportunity to investigate, the allegations upon which the proposed claim is based.

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 exist (Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1). In carrying out their duties relating to security and discipline, the actions of correction employees are quasi-judicial in nature and are cloaked with absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 220). As the act of writing a misbehavior report is cloaked with absolute immunity, a claim based on an assertion that the contents of the report are false is without 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 10, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Submitted:

1. Notice of Motion filed on May 30, 2002
2. Affidavit in Support of Joseph Anderson sworn to the 9th day of May, 2002 with attachments
3. Affirmation in Opposition of Glenn C. King, Esq. dated July 9, 2002