New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GREEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-015-032, Claim No. 113634, Motion No. M-74580


Synopsis


Pro se inmate's motion to amend claim to add an unrelated cause of action was denied as time-barred. Motion to reargue was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2008-015-032
Claimant(s):
SHAWN GREEN
Claimant short name:
GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113634
Motion number(s):
M-74580
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
Shawn Green, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Michael T. Krenrich, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 30, 2008
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate, moves to reargue his prior motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) (2), which sought to amend his claim to add a bailment cause of action unrelated to the causes of action asserted in the original claim. The Court denied the prior motion because the time to file and serve a bailment claim had expired. It is well settled that a motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (see CPLR Rule 2221 [d] [2]; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [1999]; Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc., 213 AD2d 781 [1995]). Such a motion does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1979], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]).

The claimant has failed to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented. The law is well-settled that compliance with the time limitations set forth in the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional prerequisites to the maintenance of a claim, the failure to comply with which, if not waived, constitute a jurisdictional defect depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction (City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1170 [2007], lv denied ___ NY2d ___ [2008]; citing Alston v State of New York, 97 NY2d 159 [2001]). Although the claimant could have filed and served a timely bailment claim at the time the motion to amend his claim was made, he failed to do so, instead moving to amend the original claim. While the claimant argues that the Court overlooked the principle that leave to amend a claim is freely given, this principle has no application where, as here, the cause of action sought to be added is time-barred and unrelated to the original claim.

Accordingly, the claimant’s motion is denied.



April 30, 2008
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated February 12, 2008;
  2. "Affirmation" of Shawn Green sworn to February 12, 2008;
  3. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich dated March 5, 2008;
  4. Reply of Shawn Green sworn to March 18, 2008.