New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PARRIS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-016-012, Claim Nos. 115491, 115527, Motion Nos. M-75438, CM-75845


Motion to dismiss on the ground that claims were untimely was denied. Cross-motion for permission to file a late claim was denied as moot

Case Information

1 1.The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115491, 115527
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Robert Parris, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
February 25, 2009
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant moves to dismiss claim nos. 115491 and 115527 on the ground that they were untimely served for the purposes of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”).

In the claims, Robert Parris alleges as follows: On April 15, 2008, he reported to his Parole Officer in the Bronx where a “random search” was conducted and a social security card and birth certificate with the name Robert L.H. Harris Jr. were found on him, along with a social security card in his own name. Mr. Parris explained that he was in the process of changing his name back to his “government birth name,” but he was nonetheless detained in shackles for six[2] hours while a parole violation report was prepared, and was then transferred to the 40th precinct of the Police Department of the City of New York, as his Parole Officer had telephoned the precinct and “arranged” for him to be arrested. Attached to both claims is a criminal complaint dated April 16, 2008, charging claimant with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and false personation. Claimant alleges that he was arraigned on April 17, 2008, at which time bail was set at $1,500. According to Parris, he was then “detained and a number [of] court appearance[s] occurred. . . . As of June 23[,] 2008 [the case] was dismissed.”
* * * The claims were served on the Office of the Attorney General on July 16, 2008 by certified mail, return receipt requested.[3] See ¶3 of the August 20, 2008 affirmation of Gwendolyn Hatcher and exhibit A thereto. They contain causes of action for false arrest/false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
Defendant has apparently made this motion because both claims refer to an accrual date of April 15, 2008. In fact, a cause of action for false imprisonment arises when the claimant is released from custody. See, e.g., Nunez v City of New York, 307 AD2d 218, 762 NYS2d 384 (1st Dept 2003). Parris was apparently held until June 23, 2008, but even if he had been released on April 17, 2008 when bail was set, his claim was timely for the purposes of §10.3-b of the Act, as it was served 90 days thereafter, on July 16, 2008. As to malicious prosecution, such a cause of action accrues when the underlying proceeding is terminated in favor of the claimant. See, e.g., id. In this case, claimant alleges that the underlying proceeding was dismissed on June 23, 2008. Claimant’s service of the claims on July 16, 2008 was thus well within the 90 days provided by §10.3-b of the Act.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[4], IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion no. M-75438 to dismiss shall be denied, and that claimant’s cross-motion no. CM-75845 for permission to file a late claim shall be denied as moot.

February 25, 2009
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[2].Another portion of claim no. 115527 states that claimant was shackled for eight hours.
  1. [3]Claimant states that he mailed the claims on July 14, 2008. Pursuant to §11.a.(i) of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”), “[s]ervice by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general shall not be complete until the claim or notice of intention is received in the office of the attorney general.”
  2. [4]The following were reviewed: defendant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibit A; and claimant’s notice of cross-motion.