Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for the second time to amend his
claim. The State of New York ("State") opposes the motion. Claimant previously
moved for permission to amend his claim which application was granted in part
and denied in part. (Ramos v State of New York
, Ct Cl, July 26, 2005,
Lebous, J., Claim No. 109707, Motion No. M-69978 [UID No.
More specifically, claimant
was granted permission to amend his claim in order to expand the factual
allegations in relation to his first cause of action sounding in bailment and
his second cause of action alleging assault by correction officers. Thereafter,
claimant requested permission from chambers for an extension of time to comply
with the sixty-day deadline. The State had no objection to claimant's request.
Accordingly, the court issued a Supplemental Decision & Order revising the
deadline for claimant to file his amended claim with the Clerk of the Court and
serve a copy of said amended claim upon the office of the Attorney General to
October 26, 2005. (Ramos v State of New York
, Ct Cl, October 11, 2005,
Lebous, J., Claim No. 109707, Motion No. M-69978). Claimant did not file his
amended claim by October 26, 2005, but rather moved for permission to amend his
claim yet again with a "Second Amended Claim for Damages." (Cl's Ex 1).
The State's objections are based upon changes made by claimant to his "second
amended claim for damages" as compared to the earlier version approved by the
court. More specifically, the State notes that with respect to the first cause
of action sounding in bailment, claimant has decreased the number of allegedly
lost books (from 46 to 41) while increasing the purported value (from $1,144.25
to $1,240.75); and with respect to the second cause of action sounding in
assault has increased the ad damnum amount from $500,000 to $600,000. The court
views claimant's revisions to the ad damnum amounts as related to the expanded
factual allegations previously permitted by this court and, as such, will grant
claimant's motion to file the "Second Amended Claim for Damages."
Based upon claimant's alleged difficulties in preparing his proposed amended
claims for actual filing and service the court will deem claimant's "Second
Amended Claim for Damages" attached as Exhibit 1 to his moving papers as the
amended claim in this matter. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed
to copy the "Second Amended Claim for Damages" appended to claimant's moving
papers and assign it the claim number herein as if it had been filed on October
21, 2005, the date on which claimant filed his motion papers. The State should
file and serve its amended answer to the "Second Amended Claim for Damages"
within forty (40) days from the filing of this Decision & Order.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion for
permission to file a second amended claim, Motion No. M-70844, is GRANTED.
Claim, filed August 9, 2004.
DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 109707, Motion No. M-69978, filed
July 26, 2005.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 109707, Motion No.
M-69978, filed October 11, 2005.
Notice of Motion No. M-70844, dated October 14, 2005, and filed October 21,
Affidavit of Francisco Ramos, in support of motion, sworn to October 17,
"Second Amended Claim for Damages", verified October 17, 2005.
Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated November
8, 2005, and filed October 14, 2005.