New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RAMIREZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-041-007, Claim No. 105701, Motion No. M-72821


Synopsis


Motion to amend claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2007-041-007
Claimant(s):
CARLOS RAMIREZ
Claimant short name:
RAMIREZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105701
Motion number(s):
M-72821
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANK P. MILANO
Claimant’s attorney:
CARLOS RAMIREZPro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
New York State Office of the Attorney GeneralBy: Kevan J. Acton, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
February 20, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant’s motion to amend the claim is denied.

CPLR 3025 (b) provides for the amendment of a pleading by a party either by stipulation or leave of court. “Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances” (CPLR 3025 [b]). “[I]f the amendment is meritorious and does not cause prejudice or surprise to the nonmoving party, the determination is a discretionary matter which will not be disturbed absent abuse” (Matter of Seelig, 302 AD2d 721, 723 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 4 NY3d 707 [2005]).

Claimant, in making his motion, failed to submit a copy of the proposed amended claim and offers no proof that the amended claim is meritorious. Claimant provides only his unsworn statement that “my new claim is regarding to the same deprivation I would most like for you sir to allow me to file, this amended claim, that has the same deprivation.”

Further, the record shows that the claim accrued over six (6) years ago and has been pending for nearly five (5) years. The claim has been scheduled for trial and thereafter adjourned six (6) times.

“Lateness in making a motion to amend, coupled with the absence of a satisfactory excuse for the delay and prejudice to the opposing party, justifies denial of such a motion” (Thibeault v Palma, 266 AD2d 616, 617 [3d Dept 1999]; see Moon v Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 307 AD2d 628 [3d Dept 2003]). “[A] court’s discretion to grant leave to amend should be exercised with caution where the case has been certified as ready for trial” (Sadler v Town of Hurley, 304 AD2d 930 [3d Dept 2003]).

The claimant’s motion is denied.


February 20, 2007
Albany, New York

HON. FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:

  1. Claimant’s unsworn “Permission to file Amended Claim,” filed January 8, 2007;
  1. Affirmation of Kevan J. Acton, affirmed on January 25, 2007 and filed on January 26, 2007.