New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MURRAY v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-015-204, Claim No. 110923, Motion No. M-73111


Pro se inmate's motion to amend claim to narrow the issues for trial was granted.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Joel Murray, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralNo Appearance
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 19, 2007
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for an order granting his application for leave to amend his claim pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) and (c). The original claim set forth four causes of action arising from the defendant's alleged denial of emergency sick call on March 22, 2005 and other occasions. According to the claimant, the presence of a bacteria known as "H. Pylori" was later found to be the cause of his problems. The original claim set forth four causes of action denominated as follows: (1) medical malpractice; (2) deliberate indifference; (3) cruel and unusual punishment, and (4) retaliation.

The amended claim seeks to narrow the claim by limiting the allegations to the denial of emergency treatment on March 22, 2005 and sets forth two causes of action denominated as follows: (1) medical malpractice, and (2) gross negligence.

Section 206.7 (b) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims (22 NYCRR § 206.7 [b]) permits a pleading to be amended in the manner provided by CPLR 3025, "except that a party may amend a pleading once without leave of court within 40 days after its service, or at any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within 40 days after service of a pleading responding to it." CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties..." .
It is well settled that leave to amend a pleading “ 'shall be freely given' absent prejudice or

surprise resulting directly from the delay” (McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757 [1983], quoting CPLR 3025 [b] [other citation omitted]). To defeat a motion to amend, the opponent of the motion must show that it would be “significantly prejudiced” by the amendment (Garrison v Clark Mun. Equip., 239 AD2d 742, 742 [1997]).

Here, the defendant does not oppose the motion and it is clear that the amendment sought is designed to narrow the issues for trial rather than impermissibly expand the scope of the original claim.

Accordingly, the claimant's motion for leave to amend is granted and the claimant is directed to file and serve the amended claim in the form proposed within 30 days of the date this decision and order is filed.

June 19, 2007
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated March 26, 2007;
  2. Unsworn "Affidavit" of Joel Murray dated March 26, 2007 with exhibit.