New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HARRIS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-009-63, Claim No. 109335, Motion No. M-68868


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for a default judgment was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-009-63
Claimant(s):
GEORGE HARRIS
Claimant short name:
HARRIS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109335
Motion number(s):
M-68868
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant's attorney:
GEORGE HARRIS, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 14, 2004
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking an order granting him a default judgment against the State.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit, with Attachments 1,2


Defendant's Response, with Exhibits 3

In this motion, claimant argues that he is entitled to a default judgment based upon the alleged failure of the defendant State to file its answer with the Clerk of the Court as required by § 206.7 of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims.

There is no dispute whatsoever that the defendant timely served an answer to this claim upon claimant. In fact, claimant has submitted a copy of the answer which was served upon him with his motion papers. Despite acknowledging due service of the answer, however, claimant contends that defendant failed to file this answer with the Clerk of the Court of Claims as required by this Court's Uniform Rules. In support of his motion, claimant has submitted correspondence dated June 22, 2004 acknowledging that the file maintained by the Court of Claims, at that time, did not contain an answer.

The Court has been advised, however, that an answer was timely filed but was inadvertently placed in another claim file, and that this answer has now been correctly placed with this particular claim.

Additionally, in his response to this motion, defendant's attorney has submitted copies of his answer and discovery demands which were submitted to the Court, by facsimile, on April 30, 2004 (see Exhibit B to Item 3). This answer, did not make reference to any specific claim number, since it was received by the Clerk of the Court (on April 30, 2004) prior to the actual filing of the claim by claimant (which was filed May 10, 2004). As a result, the answer was inadvertently placed in the existing claim file of another claimant who has the same name as claimant herein.

In short, defendant has both timely served and filed its answer to the claim herein, and is not in default. Defendant's answer and accompanying discovery demands have now been correctly placed in the appropriate claim file.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-68868 is hereby DENIED.


October 14, 2004
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims