New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HILL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-016-002, Claim No. 103254, Motion No. M-71540


Motion to reopen claim was denied.

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):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Curtis Hill, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Mary B. Kavaney, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 4, 2007
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant Curtis Hill moves to reopen his claim, which was dismissed in a December 5, 2005 order. Mr. Hill alleges medical malpractice in connection with his treatment for scalp cysts while incarcerated at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility. The court’s order states as follows:
On October 31, 2005, the Court sent claimant a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, which stated:
A conference on this case was scheduled for today at 10:00 am. A representative for defendant appeared, but no appearance was made on your behalf. Please advise whether you intend to pursue this claim. If a response is not provided within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter, the claim will be subject to dismissal.

On or about November 30, 2005, the letter was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with the notation “Return to Sender / Attempted - not Known / Unable to Forward” and an indication that attempts were made to deliver the letter on November 1, 12 and 16 of 2005. Section 206.6(f) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims provides that “[c]hanges in the post office address or telephone number of any attorney or pro se claimant shall be communicated in writing to the clerk within ten days thereof.”

In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that claim no. 103254 be dismissed pursuant to §19.3 of the Court of Claims Act.

In order to prevail on this motion, claimant would be required to demonstrate two factors: (1) a reasonable excuse for his default; and (2) that he has a meritorious claim. See, e.g., Blumberg v State of New York, 208 AD2d 581, 618 NYS2d 237 (2d Dept 1994). Claimant has failed to satisfy, or even to address, either factor.[1]

Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-71540 be denied.

January 4, 2007
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]In a July 19, 2006 letter to claimant, the court advised him that to prevail at trial, he would be required to present the testimony of a physician that there was a deviation from accepted standards of medical care, and the court provided claimant an additional 120 days to submit a physician’s affirmation in connection with this motion. Claimant failed to submit such an affirmation or otherwise respond to the letter.
  2. [2]The court reviewed claimant’s notice of motion filed on April 12, 2006. Defendant submitted a May 10, 2006 letter stating that it would not be responding to the motion.