New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ARCHDIOCESE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-030-548, Claim No. 116836, Motion No. M-76889


Synopsis


Claim with improper verification dismissed per order to show cause issued by Court. Duplicate claim still open. State to answer remaining claim within 30 days.

Case Information

UID:
2009-030-548
Claimant(s):
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK AND THE CHURCH OF THE INCARNATION
Claimant short name:
ARCHDIOCESE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
116836
Motion number(s):
M-76889
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
CHESNEY & MURPHY, LLPBY: STEPHEN V. MORELLO, ESQ.
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 10, 2009
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers were read and considered on the disposition of the Court’s Order to


Show Cause submitted August 5, 2009:

  1. Order to Show Cause issued June 29, 2009
  1. Affirmation in Partial Opposition by Stephen V. Morello, attorney for claimants
3-4 Filed papers: Claim Number 116836; Claim Number 116918

As an initial matter, the Court is satisfied that claimants were duly served through counsel of record with a copy of the Order to Show Cause issued by the Court.

The claim at issue was filed on May 12, 2009. From the Court’s review of the claim files for Claim number 116836 and Claim number 116918 - both assigned to the undersigned - it appeared that claimants failed to comply with requirements of §11(b) of the Court of Claims Act with regard to Claim number 116836, and that thereafter a duplicate claim was served on the Attorney General’s Office. When the duplicate claim was filed in the Office of the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims it was given Claim Number 116918. Claim number 116918 appears to comply with Court of Claims Act §11(b), at least as to the verification requirements. Indeed, in the affirmation submitted by counsel for the claimant he indicates that the earlier claim had been returned as defective, and that another claim was then served and filed.

To add to the confusion, defendant served and filed an answer, which may or may not have been intended to respond to the first or second claim, but because it was marked in ink with claim number 116836, it was filed with that defective claim. Regardless, there is no reason why there should be two claims pending over the same matter. Claim number 116918 remains on the Court’s docket, subject to whatever defenses will be raised.

Accordingly, Claim number 116836 is in all respects DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.

Defendant is directed to serve and file an answer pertinent to the remaining claim, Claim number 116918, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this decision and order.

August 10, 2009
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims