New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CHARLEMAGNE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-086, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-65145


Synopsis


Late claim motion was denied as it was made after the statute of limitations on the claim had run.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-086
Claimant(s):
ESTEBAN CHARLEMAGNE
Claimant short name:
CHARLEMAGNE
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-65145
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Esteban Charlemagne
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: James E. Shoemaker, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 27, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is the motion of Esteban Charlemagne for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). In his proposed claim, Mr. Charlemagne alleges that because of defendant's negligence, he slipped and fell in a bathroom at Woodbourne Correctional Facility on August 11, 1998. Ordinarily, in determining whether to grant this motion, six factors enumerated in the Act must be considered: whether (1) defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) the defendant was substantially prejudiced; (4) the claimant has any other available remedy; (5) the delay was excusable and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious.

In this case, however, a more fundamental issue must be addressed. Section 10.6 of the Act provides that a late claim motion may not be granted unless it is made prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations on the underlying claim. The statute of limitations on Charlemagne's claim is three years from accrual. See CPLR §214. Since he was allegedly injured on August 11, 1998, his motion would have to have been made on or prior to August 11, 2001. In fact, he did not serve and file his motion until April 12, 2002 and May 3, 2002, respectively. The Court is thus statutorily barred from granting this motion.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-65145 be denied.


August 27, 2002
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support and exhibits A-B; defendant's affirmation in opposition; claimant's submission dated June 18, 2002 (entitled "Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant's Motion to File a Late Claim"); and claimant's submission filed August 22, 2002 (entitled "Claimant's Response to Attorney General Motion Opposing Claimant's Request to File a Late Notice/Claim Due to Circumstances Out of Claimant's Reach").