New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
OLIVAR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2009-016-053, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-77093


Late claim motion was denied as moot.

Case information

UID: 2009-016-053
Claimant(s): JOSE OLIVAR
Claimant short name: OLIVAR
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): None
Motion number(s): M-77093
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP
By: Sherwin A. Suss, Esq.
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: October 28, 2009
City: New York
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant Jose Olivar moves for permission to file a late claim pursuant to 10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). In his proposed claim, Mr. Olivar alleges that employees of the State failed to delete from the "official computer" certain criminal docket numbers associated with criminal charges against him that were dismissed on July 15, 2002. He further alleges that on May 8, 2008, he "was stopped by Police Officers of the 110th precinct. At [the] time, he was stopped, he was going to be issued a desk appearance ticket when there was a positive hit for outstanding warrants related to the claimant. These warrants were, in fact, from Docket Numbers [associated with the dismissed criminal charges]. As a result, he was arrested and sent to the Queens Criminal Courthouse, Central Booking area." Finally, he alleges that he was held for approximately 12 hours, during which time he was attacked by another prisoner.

This claim accrued on May 8, 2008. See, e.g., Johnson v State of New York, 131 Misc 2d 630 (Ct Cl 1986). Within 90 days thereof, i.e., on July 28, 2008, claimant personally served a notice of intention on the Attorney General's Office. He thus has until May 8, 2010 in order to serve and file a claim. See 10.3 of the Court of Claims Act. This motion, as defendant points out, is unnecessary.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-77093 be denied as moot.

October 28, 2009

New York, New York

Alan C. Marin

Judge of the Court of Claims

1. The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support and exhibits 1 through 3; and defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibit A.