New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JORDAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-078, Claim No. 103879, Motion No. M-67190


Synopsis


Claim was restored to the calendar.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-078
Claimant(s):
BEATRICE JORDAN
Claimant short name:
JORDAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103879
Motion number(s):
M-67190
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Dalli & Marino, LLPBy: John Dalli, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Albert E. Masry, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 6, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is claimant's motion to vacate the dismissal of claim no. 103879. In such claim, it is alleged that because of defendant's negligence, claimant fell and was injured when an elevator door closed on her at the New York City Family Court in the Bronx. On May 30, 2003, the Court sent counsel for claimant a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, which directed counsel to advise of the status of this case. The letter stated that if a response was not provided within thirty days of receipt of the letter, the claim would be subject to dismissal. Counsel failed to respond within such time period and the claim was then dismissed in an Order filed on July 22, 2003.

In his affirmation in support of this motion, counsel for claimant states that he "does not have a copy of [the Court's May 30, 2003] letter in the file. Clearly, the letter was most likely delivered, however, due to law office error, was either misfiled or lost and therefore, counsel did not respond . . ." Counsel further states that his failure to respond was not intentional and that claimant wishes to reinstate the claim. See ¶¶6 and 7 of the undated affirmation of John Dalli, annexed to claimant's moving papers.

In view of claimant's professed desire to proceed with this claim and in view of the strong public policy that cases be decided on their merits[1], I find that the dismissal of this case should be vacated. Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions,[2] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-67190 be granted, that this Court's Order filed July 22, 2003 be vacated and that the Chief Clerk restore claim no. 103879.

October 6, 2003
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]See, e.g., Acosta v State of New York, 270 AD2d 164, 704 NYS2d 594 (1st Dept 2000).
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibit A; and defendant's affirmation in opposition.