New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRADY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., #2006-028-586, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-71491


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-028-586
Claimant(s):
KEVIN PATRICK BRADY
Claimant short name:
BRADY
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-71491
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant’s attorney:
KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: James L. Gelormini, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 4, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on Movant’s motion for permission to file a late claim:[1]

1. Notice of Motion and Proposed Claim with annexed Exhibits and Correspondence, submitted by Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se


2. Affirmation in Opposition of James L. Gelormini, AAG, with annexed Exhibits and Memorandum of Law


3. Multiple other submissions by Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se


Movant’s proposed claim, submitted as a separate document along with his Notice of Motion, names multiple Defendants – the State of New York, Governor George Pataki, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer – and is captioned as follows:
FOR INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT TORTS, INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL, FOR UNAUTHORIZED PROSECUTIONS, WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND INCARCERATIONS, FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DEPRIVATION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS, AND OTHER VIOLATIONS OF CLAIMANTS STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHTS
It appears that the proposed claim relates, inter alia, to events that took place in November 2002, when certain criminal charges were brought against Movant and resulted in 90 days of allegedly wrongful incarceration. From exhibits annexed to the proposed Claim, it appears that Movant was incarcerated because he had failed to pay a number of Court-ordered fees, some of which had been owed for as long as seven years. The proposed claim challenges the legality of the prosecution against him and of a number of rulings made by several courts, alleging that the prosecution and rulings constitute deprivation of certain of his Constitutional rights.

In determining a motion for permission to file a late claim, the Court must consider, among other relevant factors, the six factors set forth in subdivision 6 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act: 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 to be meritorious; 5) whether the failure to file and serve a timely claim or serve a timely notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the State; and 6) whether the movant has another available remedy. The Court in the exercise of its discretion balances these factors. As a general proposition, the presence or absence of any one factor is not dispositive (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys. Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979 [1982]). The factor of the proposed claim’s apparent merit can be an exception to this rule, however, because permitting a defective claim to be filed, even if the other factors supported the granting of movant's motion, would be meaningless and futile and can be considered an abuse of discretion (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254 [2d Dept 1993]; Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729 [2d Dept 1986]; Rosenhack v State of New York, 112 Misc 2d 967 [Ct Cl 1982]). To meet the burden of establishing that the proposed claim has sufficient merit, claimant need only show that it is not patently groundless, frivolous, or legally defective, and that there is reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists (Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1 [Ct Cl 1977]).

This proposed claim is meritless on its face, because the actions of judicial officers in carrying out their judicial function are entitled to absolute immunity from liability (Salzano v Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 AD2d 716 [2002]; Bardascini v Reedy 51 AD2d 271, 272 [3d Dept 1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 803 [1976]). In addition, actions performed by the prosecutor which are associated with the prosecutorial phase of the criminal process are deemed quasi-judicial in nature and invoke the doctrine of absolute immunity to bar civil liability for such action, even if it should appear that the actions were done maliciously (Lau v Cooke, 282 AD2d 887, 888 [3d Dept 2001]); Schanbarger v Kellogg, 35 AD2d 902 [3d Dept 1970], app dsmd 29 NY2d 649 [1971], cert den 405 US 919 [1972]). This immunity precludes any claim of negligence.

Movant’s motion is DENIED.







October 4, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1].It is possible that Movant is not seeking permission to file an untimely claim pursuant to section 10(6) of the Court of Claims Act but, rather, permission to commence an action without an attorney in light of the September 9, 2003 Decision and Order issued by Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Van Strydonck in People v Brady (Sup Ct. Monroe County, Index No. 2002/13647). This order, issued in light of the numerous frivolous actions commenced by Movant in the past, prohibited him from initiating any new litigation unless either represented by an attorney or after obtaining court permission to proceed without an attorney. Whether the instant motion is viewed as seeking relief from that Order or for permission pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(6), this Court’s decision would rest on consideration of the same factors, particularly the issue of the apparent merit of the proposed claim.