New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DOMINGUEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-040-017, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-74526


Synopsis


Court of Claims Act § 10(6) motion to file late claim denied without prejudice as no proposed claim attached.

Case Information

UID:
2008-040-017
Claimant(s):
JORGE DOMINGUEZ
Claimant short name:
DOMINGUEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-74526
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
Jorge Dominguez, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Kent B. Sprotbery, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 31, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

For the reasons set forth below, Movant’s application to serve and file a late Claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) is denied without prejudice.

Court of Claims Act § 10(6) contains two preliminary requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Court to review the six enumerated factors set forth in the statute. The first is that the underlying Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) statute of limitations for asserting a like claim against a citizen of New York State has not yet expired. The Court has reviewed Movant’s papers and cannot ascertain when the Claim allegedly accrued or what the cause of action is. Movant has not provided sufficient facts for the Court to make such a determination. Thus, the Court cannot determine if the underlying statute of limitations has expired.

The second requirement is that “[t]he claim proposed to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in section eleven of this act, shall accompany such application” (Court of Claims Act § 10[6]). The failure to satisfy this prerequisite is a basis, in and of itself, for denial of the motion (Davis v State of New York, 28 AD2d 609 [3d Dept 1967]; Guarino v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-72688, filed February 9, 2007, McCarthy, J.; Nestel v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-71607, filed May 31, 2006, Mignano, J.; Harrell v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-66235, dated April 3, 2003, Corbett, Jr., J., UID No. 2003-005-511). Here, in support of his motion, Movant has submitted a motion for permission to late file, however, he has not submitted a proposed Claim. On this basis, the Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim is denied, without prejudice.


March 31, 2008
Albany, New York

HON. CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims


The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Movant’s motion to file a late Claim pursuant to § 10(6) of the Court of Claims Act:

Papers Numbered


Notice of Motion to File Late Claim

Affidavit in Support, Affidavit of Service 1