New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RANDOLPH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-067, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-70900


Synopsis


Claimant's application for leave to serve and file a late claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-067
Claimant(s):
JORDAN RANDOLPH
Claimant short name:
RANDOLPH
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-70900
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
JORDAN RANDOLPHPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 31, 2006
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's application for leave to serve and file a late claim:
Notice of Motion, Unsworn Supporting Affirmation, Proposed Claim...................1

Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits....................................................................2

The proposed claim, received on November 2, 2005, alleges that claimant was wrongfully placed in keeplock for 14 days until his release on August 26, 2004 after a determination of not guilty was rendered at a disciplinary hearing. Thus, this claim for false imprisonment accrued upon claimant's release on August 26, 2004. The statute of limitations for a false imprisonment claim is one year and lapsed prior to claimant's application for leave to serve and file a late claim.

Claimant's failure to serve and file a late claim application before the expiration of the statute of limitations precludes the Court from considering claimant's motion for leave to serve and file a late claim (see Miller v State of New York, 283 AD2d 830) because "[t]he failure to file such application within the proscribed time period ‘creates a jurisdictional defect and the court is without discretionary power to grant nunc pro tunc relief' " (Bergmann v State of New York, 281 AD2d 731, 733).

Accordingly, claimant's motion is DENIED.


January 31, 2006
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims