New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOYE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-044, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-66395


Synopsis


Claimant's motion papers defective. His motion for permission to file a late claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-044
Claimant(s):
RUBIN MOYE
Claimant short name:
MOYE
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-66395
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARK
Claimant's attorney:
RUBIN MOYE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: THOMAS G. RAMSAY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 3, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on motion by Claimant for permission to file a late claim:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed February 10, 2003;
2. Claimant's affidavit, sworn to February 2, 2003;
3. Affirmation In Opposition of Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq., dated February 14, 2003.This is the motion of Rubin Moye for permission to file a late claim pursuant to § 10(6) of the Court of Claims Act (the "CCA").

Subdivision 6 of § 10 of the CCA enumerates six factors to be weighed in connection with a late claim motion: (1) whether the delay was excusable; (2) whether Claimant has any other remedy; (3) whether Defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (4) whether Defendant had an opportunity to investigate; (5) whether Defendant would be substantially prejudiced; and (6) whether the claim appears to be meritorious.

Mr. Moye's affidavit in support of his motion implies that the incident of which he complains occurred at Attica Correctional Facility. Other than this assertion, Mr. Moye's application is completely devoid of any facts upon which an analysis of the § 10(6) factors could be undertaken. Mr. Moye does not indicate what his proposed cause of action is, when or how it accrued, or how he was damaged. Mr. Moye has also failed to attach a proposed claim to his submission as required by § 10(6).

Defendant, of course, opposes the application, pointing out the deficits described above.

Upon reviewing the papers before me, I find that Mr. Moye's submission is so defective that it prevents a consideration of the factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10(6). Based upon the foregoing it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion for permission to file a late claim in this matter is denied.

July 3, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARK
Judge of the Court of Claims