New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BLUM v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-033-012, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-66114


Synopsis


Movants motion to treat notice of intention as a claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-033-012
Claimant(s):
SONDRA BLUM
Claimant short name:
BLUM
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-66114
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JAMES J. LACK
Claimant's attorney:
David M. Blum, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Ricardo Montano, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 3, 2003
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is a motion of Sondra Blum (hereinafter "movant") for permission to file a late claim and/or seeking to have the previously timely served Notice of Intention deemed the claim.[1]



This claim accrued on November 24, 1999, on the clay tennis courts of Bethpage State Park. Movant timely served a Notice of Intention upon the Attorney General on January 14, 2000, which sets forth the time, place and nature of the claim. After serving a notice of intention, a claim for negligence must be served and filed within two years from the date of accrual (Court of Claims Act §10(3)). Although a claim was drafted and placed in counsel's file, it was not served. Upon counsel's later inspection of his file, it appeared the claim had been attached to the previously served Notice, and that the receipt of mailing and return receipt for the Notice of Intention had been affixed, giving the impression that the documents had been served (Affirmation of David M. Blum, Esq. in Support of Motion to treat Notice of Intention as a claim par. 7).

Movant now makes a motion to treat her Notice of Intention as a claim. Movant contends that the Notice contains facts sufficient to constitute a claim including an allegation of negligence and a demand for compensation (id. ¶5). The Court has the power to entertain applications for the filing of a late claim, as long as it is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations set forth in article two of the CPLR.
Section 10(8) of the Court of Claims Act allows a claimant who timely serves a notice of intention to apply to the Court to treat the notice as a claim. Section 10(8) states:
A claimant who timely serves a notice of intention but who fails to timely serve or file a claim may, nevertheless, apply to the court for permission to treat the notice of intention as a claim. The court shall not grant such application unless: it is made upon motion before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen of the state would be barred under the provisions of article two of the civil practice law and rules; the notice of intention was timely served, and contains facts sufficient to constitute a claim; and the granting of the application would not prejudice the defendant.
This motion is timely served.

Defendant's opposition to this motion addresses the sufficiency of the Notice of Intention and leaves this question to the discretion of the Court.

In examining the Notice of Intention, the Court finds that it has been pled with sufficient particularity to satisfy Court of Claims Act §11. However, movant is directed to particularize her injuries in a Bill of Particulars.

Accordingly, movant's motion is granted and the Notice of Intention is deemed to be the claim. Movant is directed to file with the Clerk of the Court a copy of the served Notice of Intention together with a filing fee of $50 or request for poor person status within 20 days of the filing date of this decision and order.


June 3, 2003
Hauppauge, New York

HON. JAMES J. LACK
Judge of the Court of Claims



[1]
The following papers have been read and considered on movant's motion to treat the notice of intention as a claim: Notice of Motion dated November 22, 2002 and filed November 25, 2002; Affirmation of David M. Blum, Esq. in Support of Motion with attachments dated November 22, 2002 and filed November 25, 2002; Affirmation in Opposition of Ricardo Montano dated January 13, 2002(sic) and filed January 16, 2003.