The following submissions were reviewed on the motion by Claimant for leave to
file a late claim:
1. Notice of Motion, undated, filed March 26, 2004;
2. Affidavit of Service By Mail of Joshua Van Vleet, sworn to March 12, 2004;
3. Letter to the Court dated April 13, 2004, from Reynolds E. Hahn, Assistant
Attorney General, with copy to Claimant;
4. Claim, verified July 11, 2002, filed October 4, 2002, under Claim No.
5. Decision and Order (Hudson, J.), filed October 23, 2003, under Claim No.
106748, Motion No. M-67443.
Claimant has filed a notice of motion, without supporting affidavit, wherein he
seeks leave of the Court under Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) to file and
serve a late claim to recover $460 in damages for the alleged loss of personal
property, pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (9). Mr. Van Vleet contends
that his property was lost at some point between April 17, 2002, and April 20,
2002, as he was transferred from Clinton Correctional Facility to Attica
Correctional Facility, then confined to a Special Housing Unit as part of a
disciplinary proceeding. Previously, Claimant had filed a claim seeking the
same relief on October 4, 2002,
No. 106748. That action was subsequently dismissed by Decision and Order
(Hudson, J.) filed October 23, 2003, based upon Claimant's failure to serve his
pleading upon the Attorney General, as required under Court of Claims Act §
11 (a) (i).
The late claim remedies provided within section 10 (6) are inapplicable to
inmate property claims under section 10 (9) (Murray v State of New York
Ct Cl, July 2, 2004, Hudson J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-67997; McCann v
State of New York
, 194 Misc 2d 340 ; but see Wright v State of New
, 195 Misc 2d 597 ).
reason the Court must deny Claimant's motion for leave to late file and serve
his claim, without reaching the merits of his application pursuant to Court of
Claims Act § 10 (6), and without addressing the dispute as to whether
Claimant served a copy of the within motion upon the Attorney General. Lastly,
the Court notes that Claimant has failed to append a copy of his proposed claim
to his motion papers, as required under Court of Claims Act § 10 (6)
(see Davis v State of New York
, 28 AD2d 609, 610 [addressing former
section 10 (5)]; see also Walach v State of New York
, 91 Misc 2d
167, 169  affd
69 AD2d 1015 ).