New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MEDDAUGH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-031-054, Claim Nos. 105991, 105733, Motion No. M-65643


Synopsis


Defendant's motion for permission to file an amended answer(s) is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2002-031-054
Claimant(s):
THOMAS MEDDAUGH
Claimant short name:
MEDDAUGH
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105991, 105733
Motion number(s):
M-65643
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
THOMAS MEDDAUGH, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: RICHARD B. FRIEDFERTIG, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 27, 2002
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


The following papers were read on motion by Defendant for an order permitting it to serve an amended answer, pursuant to CPLR 3025:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed August 14, 2002;
2. Affidavit of Richard B. Friedfertig, Esq., sworn to August 13, 2002, with attached exhibits. Defendant brings this motion for permission to file an amended answer pursuant to CPLR 3025. Specifically, Defendant seeks to amend its original answer, filed June 11, 2002, to assert the affirmative defense that the claim was served via regular mail and not certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (the "CCA"). In Defendant's moving papers, Defendant identified both claim numbers and indicated its understanding that only one claim existed and that the claim number had been changed by the Clerk's Office for administrative reasons. In fact, there are two active claims, which are substantially identical. Claimant, in a June 26, 2002 letter to the Chief Clerk, indicated that his intent was to file only one claim, not two. Based upon this, I have considered dismissing one of the claims in the interest of judicial economy. However, as Defendant raises jurisdictional defenses which could affect one or both of the claims, dismissal of one of the claims, at this point, may prove prejudicial to Claimant.

The Claimant has not submitted any papers in opposition to this motion. I note that the underlying claim(s) is for personal injuries which accrued on December 18, 2001. Claimant served a notice of intention to file a claim by certified mail, return receipt requested on March 13, 2002, thereby preserving his right to commence an action against the State for a period of two years from the date of the accident, pursuant to CCA §10. I find that the Claimant would not be prejudiced by granting Defendant's motion. Based upon the papers submitted with this motion, it is

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion for permission to amend its answer in claims 105733 and 105991 is GRANTED. Defendant shall file and serve its amended answer within 30 days of the filed date of this order.

November 27, 2002
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims