New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SANCHEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-033-210, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-72004


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-033-210
Claimant(s):
CARLIXTO SANCHEZ and JAYME SANCHEZ
Claimant short name:
SANCHEZ
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-72004
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Litman & Litman, P.C.By: Jeffrey E. Litman, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: John L. Belford, IV, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 27, 2006
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is a motion brought by Carlixto Sanchez (hereinafter "movant"), due to the alleged negligence of the defendant, the State of New York (hereinafter “State”). The alleged negligence occurred on April 20, 2005, at the intersection of Front Street and Locust Avenue, Uniondale, New York. The proposed claim of Jayme Sanchez is derivative in nature.

Movants seek permission to file a late claim against the State of New York pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(6)[1].

In determining a motion seeking permission to file a late claim, the Court must consider the following six enumerated factors listed in Court of Claims Act §10(6): (1) whether the delay in filing 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 failure to file and serve a timely claim or serve a timely notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the State; (5) whether the movant has another available remedy; and (6) whether the claim appears to be meritorious. The Court in the exercise of its discretion balances these factors, and, as a general rule, the presence or absence of any one factor is not dispositive (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement System Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement System, 55 NY2d 979).

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers in support of and in opposition to the motion.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the statutory factors favor movants’ application and, therefore, grants permission to file a late claim (Jomarron v State of New York, 23 AD3d 527). Movants are directed to serve and file the proposed claim within forty-five (45) days of the filing of this Decision and Order in accordance with §§10, 11 and 11-a of the Court of Claims Act.


September 27, 2006
Hauppauge, New York

HON. JAMES J. LACK
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1].The following papers have been read and considered on movants’ motion: Notice of Motion to File a Late Claim Nunc Pro Tunc dated July 7, 2006 and filed July 17, 2006; Affirmation in Support of Jeffrey E. Litman, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A-G dated July 7, 2006 and filed July 17, 2006; Affirmation in Opposition of John L. Belford, IV, Esq. dated July 24, 2006 and filed July 26, 2006; Reply Affirmation of Jeffrey E. Litman, Esq. dated July 26, 2006 and filed July 26, 2006.