New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

YOUNG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-563, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-70535


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for a hearing is denied; the Acting Chief Clerk is directed to deem "Affidavit in Support for Actual Claim" as the claim in this matter and accept the State's previously filed Verified Answer in response thereto.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-563
Claimant(s):
JERRY YOUNG a/k/a RAMADAN
Claimant short name:
YOUNG
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-70535
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
JERRY YOUNG a/k/a RAMADAN, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Carol A. Cocchiola, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 1, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks an order scheduling a hearing in relation to this matter. The defendant State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion, but acknowledges that claimant's papers could be deemed a claim in this matter.

Claimant's motion papers are comprised of a "Notice of Motion" and an "Affidavit in Support For Actual Claim." The papers allege that prison officials at Southport Correctional Facility unlawfully used mechanical restraints on him during his one hour of outdoor exercise thus depriving him of his liberty without due process of law from June 6 or 7 to June 17, 2005. Claimant's papers do not contain an explicit request for relief with the exception of a request for a hearing contained in the Notice of Motion and a demand for damages contained in his affidavit.


The State avers that it received claimant's motion papers and, understandably, interpreted the documents as a claim rather than a motion. The State served a Verified Answer on the claimant and forwarded the same to the Chief Clerk for filing on August 8, 2005. (State's Ex B).


To the extent that claimant's motion papers could be deemed a motion seeking permission to file a late claim pursuant to CCA 10 (6), the court finds such relief to be unnecessary. Claimant filed his "Affidavit in Support For Actual Claim," with the Clerk of the Court on July 20, 2005 and served the same upon the Office of the Attorney General on July 7, 2005, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thus, both the service and filing of the Affidavit in Support For Actual Claim, were it a claim, were in compliance with CCA 10 and 11. Moreover, the State filed and served a Verified Answer in response thereto. As such, the court will deem claimant's "Affidavit in Support For Actual Claim" as a claim, subject to the payment by claimant of the filing fee pursuant to CCA 11-a as set forth below.


Upon receipt of claimant's payment of the requisite filing fee pursuant to CCA 11-a, the Acting Clerk of the Court is directed to copy the "Affidavit in Support For Actual Claim" appended to the Notice of Motion and assign it a claim number as if it had been filed on July 20, 2005, the date on which claimant filed his motion papers. Additionally, the State's Verified Answer should be deemed filed as of the date it was received in the Office of the Clerk on or about August 8, 2005.


In view of the foregoing, claimant's motion, Motion No. M-70535, is hereby DENIED.


September 1, 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 matter:
  1. Notice of Motion No. M-70535, filed July 20, 2005.
  2. "Affidavit in Support For Actual Claim", sworn to June 25, 2005.
  3. Affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated August 24, 2005, and filed August 26, 2005, with attached exhibits.