New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WILEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-030-522, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-69637


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2005-030-522
Claimant(s):
REGINALD WILEY
Claimant short name:
WILEY
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-69637
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
REGINALD WILEY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: MICHAEL C. RIZZO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 14, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read and considered on the proposed Claimant's[1] motion for permission to serve and file a late claim brought pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(6):
1-3 Motion for Permission to File Late Claim by Reginald Wiley, Claimant; Notice of Intention to Motion the Court of Claims to File Late Claim; Claim

  1. Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to late file by Michael C. Rizzo, Assistant Attorney General
  1. Letter "To Whom it May Concern" by Reginald Wiley dated January 16, 2005 - refers to another Claim Number 109399 apparently concerning lost property
After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the motion is disposed of as follows:

Reginald Wiley alleges in his claim that on or about November 17, 2003 Defendant's agents at Green Haven Correctional Facility (hereafter Green Haven) negligently or intentionally failed to provide him, an inmate at Green Haven, with access to his wheelchair, forcing him to attempt to negotiate a path to the bathroom on his own, and causing him to fall and suffer injury. [Claim, ¶ 2]. He alleges he called out to correction officers for assistance, but was told to "leave them alone." [id.].

In order to determine an application for permission to serve and file a late claim, the Court must consider, "among other factors," the six factors set forth in the Court of Claims Act §10(6). The factors stated therein are: (1) whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; (2) whether the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (3) whether the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (4) whether the claim appears meritorious; (5) whether substantial prejudice resulted from the failure to timely serve upon the Attorney General a claim or notice of intention to file a claim, and the failure to timely file the claim with the Court of Claims; and (6) whether any other remedy is available.

Although the motion is timely, because the applicable statute of limitations is three (3) years [See Court of Claims Act §10(6); Civil Practice Law and Rules §214], Claimant has not addressed any of the factors set forth in Court of Claims Act §10(6), and on that ground alone the motion is denied. No excuse or explanation is offered for the requested relief, and Claimant merely repeats the allegations contained in the proposed claim in all the documents submitted in support of his motion in chief. The letter he also sent takes issue with statements apparently made by the Assistant Attorney General in connection with a different claim, and is not relevant to the present motion.

Accordingly, motion number M-69637 is in all respects denied.

April 14, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] For ease of reference, the "proposed Claimant" is hereinafter referred to as "Claimant".