New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ALLSTATE/McSWEENEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-033-249, Claim No. 112313, Motion No. M-72959


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2007-033-249
Claimant(s):
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o DIANE McSWEENEY
Claimant short name:
ALLSTATE/McSWEENEY
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112313
Motion number(s):
M-72959
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Carl S. Young & AssociatesBy: Carl S. Young, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: John L. Belford, IV, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 6, 2007
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is a claim by Allstate Insurance Co. a/s/o of Diane McSweeney (hereinafter “claimant”) to recover property damages allegedly caused by defendant’s vehicle. The damage was caused as the result of a motor vehicle accident between claimant’s subrogee and defendant’s employee. The accident occurred on December 20, 2004, at the intersection of Sprague Avenue and NYS Route 110, Amityville, New York.


A conference was held in regard to this case on August 16, 2006. At that time, the parties reached a tentative agreement as to the settlement of this claim in the sum of $4,234.09. The proposed settlement was memorialized by the Court in its daily report dated August 16, 2006. The settlement was conditioned upon the approval of the defendant.

Claimant moves this Court to enforce the settlement entered on August 16, 2006.[1] Claimant relies on CPLR 5003-a that payment must be made within 90 days of the Comptroller determining that all necessary paperwork to settle the claim is in the Comptroller’s possession.

What claimant fails to understand is that CPLR 5003-a does not yet govern the case. Court of Claims Act §20-a requires the approval of the agency which is the subject of the suit and the approval of the Attorney General’s Office before a claim can be settled. Unfortunately, there is no time limit placed on this process by the Court of Claims Act, but I certainly agree that a reasonable amount of time has expired since the announcement of the settlement with the Attorney General.

Based on the foregoing, claimant’s motion is denied. Upon claimant’s receipt of this Decision and Order and new found knowledge of settlement procedures in the Court of Claims, claimant may contact its adversary and the Court if it wishes to void the proposed settlement and proceed to trial forthwith.


June 6, 2007
Hauppauge, New York

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




[1].The following papers have been read and considered on claimant’s motion: Notice of Motion dated February 14, 2007 and filed February 20, 2007; Affirmation of Carl S. Young, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A-B dated February 14, 2007 and filed February 20, 2007; Affirmation in Opposition of John L. Belford, IV, Esq. dated March 8, 2007 and filed March 12, 2007; Reply Affirmation of Carl S. Young, Esq. dated March 14, 2007 and filed March 19, 2007.