New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HAKIM v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-022, Claim No. 104739, Motion No. M-64164


False imprisonment claim was dismissed as untimely.

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:
No Appearance
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: J. Gardner Ryan, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 6, 2002
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Abdul Hakim on the grounds that it was untimely served and filed. Hakim's claim is for false imprisonment; he alleges that staff members at Otisville Correctional Facility retaliated against him for bringing a medical malpractice lawsuit by conspiring to create a misbehavior report containing false statements. That allegedly resulted in Hakim's being found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and, among other things, being sentenced to 90 days in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"). The relevant dates in this case are as follows: Hakim asserts that he was provided with the misbehavior report on December 27, 1999 and the following day, was transferred to SHU. A disciplinary hearing was commenced on December 29, 1999 and completed on January 12, 2000, at which he was found guilty and sentenced to SHU time. He was released from the unit on March 24, 2000 and his guilty finding was ultimately reversed on June 5, 2000. Hakim served defendant with a notice of intention on March 6, 2000, filed his claim on August 17, 2001 and served it on defendant on August 20, 2001.

Section 10.3-b of the Court of Claims Act provides that in a claim for intentional tort such as this one, the outside time for filing a claim is one year from accrual (if a notice of intention was served within 90 days). In this case, using even the last possible date alleged by Hakim, the June 5, 2000 reversal date, his claim was served more than one year later on August 20, 2001. This Court thus lacks jurisdiction over the claim. See, e.g, Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782, 783, 480 NYS2d 225, 227 (2d Dept 1984), lv denied, 64 NY2d 607, 488 NYS2d 1023 (1985) (citations omitted). See also Mallory v State of New York, 196 AD2d 925, 601 NYS2d 972 (3d Dept 1993).

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-64164 be granted and claim no. 104739 be dismissed.

March 6, 2002
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]Along with the claim, the Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support. Claimant filed no opposition papers.