1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of John Prendergast, pro
2. Affirmation in Opposition of Saul Aronson, AAG.
Filed papers: None.
This motion for permission to file an untimely claim, brought pursuant
to Court of Claims Act §10(6), is defective, in that the motion papers do
not contain a proposed claim. The statute expressly states: "The claim proposed
to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in section eleven of
this act, shall accompany such application
Rather than attaching a separate proposed claim to his motion papers, Movant set
forth the factual allegations that constitute his claim in the third paragraph
of his affidavit in support of the motion. Without full compliance with the
statute, however, there is no proposed pleading for the Court to consider
(Harrell v State of New York
, Ct Cl, Corbett, J., Claim No. NONE, UID
#2003-005-511, April 3, 2003, see also Concepcion v County of Oneida
of the State of New York, Oneida County Sheriff of the State of New York
Cl, Sise, P. J., Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-69466, UID #2005-028-516, February
As with any statute that provides litigants with an
extraordinary remedy or privilege, there must be strict compliance with the
procedural requirements in applying for such relief (see e.g. Weiner v
MKVII Westchester, LLC
, 292 AD2d 597 [2d Dept 2002][re: an individual's
power to file a notice of pendency on real property]). Accordingly, the Court
is obliged to deny this motion as improper.
Motion No. M-69925 is denied,
without prejudice to Movant's right to make a subsequent motion for the same
relief upon proper papers.