New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TRICE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-031-016, , Motion No. M-67155


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-031-016
Claimant(s):
ADRIAN TRICE Caption amended sua sponte to show the only proper defendant.
Claimant short name:
TRICE
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Caption amended sua sponte to show the only proper defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

Motion number(s):
M-67155
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
ADRIAN TRICE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: PAUL F. CAGINO, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 17, 2004
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 July 23, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to July 17, 2003, with attached exhibits;
3. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, Esq., dated August 11, 2003. This is the motion of Adrian Trice 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.

However, despite the fact that Mr. Trice's affidavit in support of his motion mentions these factors, and says in conclusory language that they weigh in his favor, his submission is so completely devoid of any facts that an analysis of the § 10(6) factors could not be undertaken. Although Mr. Trice makes a veiled reference to "tortuous" conduct as a basis for his claim, when or how it accrued, or the extent of his damages is not indicated. He has included an affidavit and a proposed claim, but these documents are almost entirely unintelligible.

Defendant, of course, opposes the application pointing out the deficits described above, and indicating that it was not able to decipher any meaningful allegations from Claimant's motion papers.

Upon reviewing the papers before me, I find that Mr. Trice'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.

February 17, 2004
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims