New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HALL v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-014-520, Claim No. 112236, Motion No. M-71709


Synopsis


Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that it is untimely is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2006-014-520
Claimant(s):
RONALD J. HALL
Claimant short name:
HALL
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112236
Motion number(s):
M-71709
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
S. MICHAEL NADEL
Claimant’s attorney:
Ronald J. Hall, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ellen Matowik Russell, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 8, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim: Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, and Exhibit; “Affidavit to Oppose a Motion;” Reply Affirmation; “Affidavit to Oppose a Reply.”

Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services, alleges that his property was lost or destroyed due to the “negligence and intentional negligence by the State.”

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction on the basis that claimant neither served a notice of intention nor served and filed a claim within one hundred twenty days of the exhaustion of his administrative remedies as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (9).

Claimant opposes the motion, arguing that his claim “encompasses intertwined incidents” of “criminal or unlawful acts” that go beyond his property claim (Claimant’s Affidavit to Oppose a Reply).

Claimant submitted an amendment and appeal on a Department of Correctional Services Facility Claim on September 27, 2005, and on December 1 and December 2, 2005, the appeal was denied. A notice of intention was served on the Attorney General’s Office on April 20, 2006, and a claim was served on the Attorney General’s Office and filed with the Chief Clerk on April 20, 2006.

Regardless of whether the cause of action is for an inmate property claim, governed by the one hundred twenty day time limitation found in Court of Claims Act § 10 (9), or an intentional tort or negligence cause of action, governed by the ninety day time limitation found in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 (3), and 10 (3-b), both the notice of intention and the claim are untimely, and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim.

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim is granted.

August 8, 2006
New York, New York

HON. S. MICHAEL NADEL
Judge of the Court of Claims