New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

AGAOILI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-016-025, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-67981


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-016-025
Claimant(s):
ENRIQUETA B. AGCAOILI Claimant's notice of motion names the State of New York as a defendant. Other captions contained in her papers list numerous individual defendants.
Claimant short name:
AGAOILI
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Claimant's notice of motion names the State of New York as a defendant. Other captions contained in her papers list numerous individual defendants.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
None
Motion number(s):
M-67981
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Enriqueta B. Agcaoili
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Grace A. Brannigan, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 13, 2004
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is the motion of Enriqueta B. Agcaoili for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act. In her proposed claim, Ms. Agcaoili alleges improprieties by the State Insurance Fund, lawyers representing her and others involved with a Workers' Compensation claim she filed. Ordinarily, in order to decide this motion, six factors enumerated in the Act would be considered: whether (1) defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) defendant was substantially prejudiced; (4) claimant has any other available remedy; (5) the delay was excusable and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious. In this case, however, a more fundamental issue must be addressed -- whether this Court has jurisdiction over the proposed claim.

With regard to the State Insurance Fund, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction to hear claims concerning the adequacy or inadequacy of its determinations as to Workers' Compensation benefits. See, e.g., El Sawah v State Insurance Fund, 133 AD2d 540, 519 NYS2d 908 (4th Dept 1987); Baltsavias v State of New York, 121 AD2d 421, 503 NYS2d 118 (2d Dept 1986). Rather, "the adequacy or inadequacy of the award is subject to review on direct appeal from the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board to the Appellate Division, Third Department." Baltsavias, supra, 121 AD2d at 421, 503 NYS2d at 119.

As to the individual persons named in Agcaoili's claim, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over individuals. See, e.g., Smith v State of New York, 72 AD2d 937, 938, 422 NYS2d 221, 222 (4th Dept 1979), affd 59 NY2d 718, 463 NYS2d 439 (1983).

In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Agcaoili's proposed claim. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-67981 be denied.

May 13, 2004
New York, New York

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





  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant's "Notice of Motion of Intention to File a Late Claim" with proposed claim and exhibits A-RR; claimant's memorandum of law; defendant's affirmation in opposition; and claimant's documents entitled "Affidavit in Opposition" filed on February 26, 2004 and March 10, 2004.