New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
PRISTELL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-547, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-70283
Synopsis

Claimant's motion for an order deeming the timely served notice of intention alleging bailment cause of action as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10 (8) is denied.
Case Information
UID:
2005-019-547
Claimant(s):
HENRY PRISTELL
Claimant short name:
PRISTELL
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-70283
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant’s attorney:
HENRY PRISTELL, 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:
July 15, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:
AFFIRMED 40 AD3D 1198 3D DEPT 5/3/07
See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant moves for an order to deem his timely served notice of intention alleging a bailment cause of action as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act (hereinafter "CCA") 10 (8). The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.
[1]
This is claimant's second motion relative to this bailment cause of action. By way of a prior Decision & Order, this court denied claimant's application to file a late claim pertaining to this same bailment cause of action. (Pristell v State of New York, Ct Cl, January 18, 2005, Lebous, J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-69453 [UID No. 2005-019-501]).
[2]
In said Decision & Order, this court also stated that the service of a notice of intention in connection with a bailment claim arising under CCA 10 (9) is of no legal consequence and may not serve as a basis for CCA 10 (8) relief. Claimant apparently misconstrued said statements as an invitation to seek the very relief the court noted was unavailable in bailment claims. Once again, the court notes that it is well-settled that even a timely and properly served notice of intention alleging a bailment cause of action arising under CCA 10 (9) is of no legal consequence and may not serve as a basis for relief under CCA 10 (8). (Cepeda v State of New York, Ct Cl, October 22, 2001, Midey, Jr., J., Claim No. 104717, Motion No. M-64015 [UID No. 2001-009-049]; Gloster v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 5, 2002, McNamara, J., Claim No. 103662, Motion No. M-64877 [UID No. 2002-011-550]).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion for an order deeming the timely served notice of intention alleging a bailment cause of action as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10 (8), Motion No. M-70283 is DENIED.

July 15, 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. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-69453, filed January 27, 2005.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-70283, dated May 20, 2005, and filed June 15, 2005.
  3. Affidavit of Henry Pristell, in support of motion, sworn to May 26, 2005, with attached exhibits.
  4. Affirmation of Geoffrey B. Rossi, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated , and filed .

[1]The State's opposing papers were filed two days after the return date. The court finds no prejudice in accepting the State's late submission. (CPLR 2214 [c]; 22 NYCRR 206.9 [b]).
[2]Selected unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at