New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOORE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-511, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-69500


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for permission to file a late claim, involving alleged assault at county jail by correction officers, is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-511
Claimant(s):
JEFFREY L. MOORE
Claimant short name:
MOORE
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-69500
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
JEFFREY L. MOORE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Geoffrey B. Rossi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 25, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act (hereinafter "CCA") 10 (6). The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

The proposed claim relates to an alleged incident that occurred on January 28, 2004 when claimant alleges he was assaulted by various corrections officers while incarcerated at the Broome County jail in Binghamton, New York.


The substantive factors that the court must consider in determining a properly framed CCA 10 (6) motion are whether:

1. the delay in filing the claim was excusable;

2. the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim;

3. the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying

the claim;

4. the claim appears to be meritorious;

5. the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the State; and

6. there is any other available remedy.


Whether the proposed claim appears meritorious has been characterized as the most decisive component in determining a motion under CCA 10 (6), since it would be futile to permit a meritless claim to proceed. (Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1). In order to establish a meritorious claim, claimant must establish his proposed claim is not patently groundless, frivolous, or legally defective and that there is reasonable cause to believe that a valid claim exists. (Id. at 11).


This matter is alleged to have occurred at the Broome County jail which is a county facility, not a state correctional facility. It is well-settled that prisoners in county jails are under the care and control of the sheriff of the county in which the jail is located. (Correction Law 500-c). Here, the Broome County jail would be the responsibility of the Broome County Sheriff who is not a State employee, but a county employee. (Bardi v Warren County Sheriff's Dept., 194 AD2d 21). This court does not have jurisdiction to hear a matter that did not occur on State-owned property nor involve State employees. (CCA 9). As such, the court need not address the remaining statutory factors,[1] and finds that claimant's motion for permission to file a late claim involving an incident occurring at the Broome County jail must be denied.


In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that claimant's motion for permission to file a late claim, Motion No. M-69500, is DENIED.


February 25, 2005
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims

The court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Notice of Motion No. M-69500, filed December 6, 2004.
  2. Affidavit of Jeffrey L. Moore, in support of motion.
  3. Proposed Claim.
  4. Affirmation of Geoffrey B. Rossi, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated February 2, 2005, and filed February 7, 2005, with attached exhibit.

[1]The court notes that all of the remaining factors would have weighed against claimant as well.