New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WALSH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-016-017, Claim No. 110257, Motion No. M-74767


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-016-017
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL WALSH
Claimant short name:
WALSH
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110257
Motion number(s):
M-74767
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Michael Walsh, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 20, 2008
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Michael Walsh on the ground that it was not properly verified. In his claim, Mr. Walsh alleges that because of defendant’s negligence, items of his personal property were lost at Sullivan Correctional Facility. The claim is scheduled to be tried on July 24, 2008. Walsh filed and served his claim on December 22, 2004. That same day, Janet A. Barringer, a senior clerk at the Attorney General’s Albany office, sent a letter rejecting and returning the claim to Walsh on the ground that it did not contain the verification language required by CPLR 3021.

Thereafter, on January 3, 2005, claimant filed with the Clerk of the Court a “Verification” referring to his claim and containing the language required by CPLR 3021. In his opposition papers, claimant indicates that the verification was also served on the Office of the Attorney General at that time, and the verification filed with the Clerk’s Office has the notation “cc / Attorney General[’s] Office Ms. Barringer.”

The above having been said, claimant’s opposition papers on this motion were filed on April 24, 2008, after the April 16, 2008 return date, and it appears that they may not have been served on defendant. In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-74767 shall be denied at this time, without prejudice to defendant’s right to renew the motion at trial.

May 20, 2008
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: defendant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits; and claimant’s “Notice of Motion” filed April 24, 2008 (which was treated as an opposition to this motion) with affidavit in support and exhibits.