New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WALKER v. NEW YORK STATE, DIVISION OF PAROLE, #2006-016-070, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-71748


Synopsis


Late claim motion was denied as time barred.

Case Information

UID:
2006-016-070
Claimant(s):
FREDDIE WALKER
Claimant short name:
WALKER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
None
Motion number(s):
M-71748
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Freddie Walker, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ellen Matowik Russell, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
November 2, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Freddie Walker moves for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”). Mr. Walker appears to allege that because of the improper actions of a State Parole Officer, he was returned to prison from parole status. Ordinarily, in determining whether to grant this motion, six factors enumerated in the Act must be considered: whether (1) defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) the defendant was substantially prejudiced; (4) the claimant has any other available remedy; (5) the delay was excusable and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious.

In this case, however, a more fundamental issue must be addressed. Section 10.6 of the Act provides that a late claim motion may not be granted unless it is made prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations on the underlying claim. Walker alleges that his claim accrued on March 25, 2003, more than three years before this motion was made. The statute of limitations on any possible cause of action which might arise from the facts as alleged here has already run. See Article 2 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. In view of the foregoing, the Court is statutorily barred from granting this motion.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties’ submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-71748 be denied.


November 2, 2006
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant’s notice of motion with affidavit in support, proposed claim and undesignated exhibits; and defendant’s affirmation in opposition with exhibit A.