New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VICKERS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-033-336, Claim No. 114102, Motion Nos. M-74338, M-74339, M-74340, M-75829


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2009-033-336
Claimant(s):
GLENN-VICKERS: BEY-J.D.
Claimant short name:
VICKERS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114102
Motion number(s):
M-74338, M-74339, M-74340, M-75829
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Glenn-Vickers: Bey-J.D., Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Kimberly A. Kinirons, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 30, 2009
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is a claim by Glenn-Vickers: Bey- J.D. (hereinafter “claimant”) for injuries allegedly caused by defendant as the result of numerous causes of action. Claimant lists 23 causes of action against defendant.


Claimant was an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York. On July 31, 1995, claimant was sentenced due to his conviction for Sexual Abuse 3o. Thereafter, claimant was suspended from the practice of law on January 17, 1997. Claimant has not been reinstated to date. According to claimant’s papers, Committee on Character and Fitness has demanded that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to readmittance. Claimant refuses to submit to the evaluation.

Currently, there are four motions pending before this Court.[1] Defendant has submitted two motions to dismiss the claim[2] (M-74338 and M-74339).[3] Claimant has also submitted two motions (M-74340 and M-75829)[4]. First, claimant moves this Court for a hearing “with the representative of the State of New York who has economic settlement authority in this matter . . .” and for subpoenas. Lastly, claimant moves this Court for subpoenas duces tecum.

The requirements of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed (Lurie v State of New York, 73 AD2d 1006, aff’d 52 NY2d 849). The purpose of these requirements is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts and prepare a defense. It is well settled that if the filing is not timely then the claim is subject to dismissal (Greenspan Bros. v State of New York, 122 AD2d 249). Court of Claims Act §10(3) states that the claim be filed and served or a notice of intention be served within 90 days of the date of accrual. If a notice of intention is served upon the Attorney General’s office then claimant must serve and file his claim within two (2) years of the date the claim accrued.

In examining claimant’s causes of action, the Court is aware of the great and burdensome ordeal claimant finds himself enduring. However, this Court finds no cause of action which can survive defendant’s motions to dismiss. Each of the causes of action as alleged are rooted in the prosecution and conviction of claimant in 1995. Claimant indicates various dates on which he alleges that he served a notice of intention upon defendant. The earliest date alleged by claimant is January 24, 2000. Contrary to defendant’s contention that no notice of intention was ever served, the Court will assume, arguendo for purposes of this motion, the notice of intention was served on that date. The date is well beyond the 90 days from July 1995, and the claim was not served and filed within two years of the accrual date.

In addition to the above, the causes of action alleged by claimant are well beyond any applicable statute of limitations (CPLR Art. 2).

Based upon the foregoing defendant’s motions to dismiss the claim and the amended claim are granted. Claimant’s motions are denied as moot.


March 30, 2009
Hauppauge, New York

HON. JAMES J. LACK
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1].The Court notes that numerous lengthy adjournments of the motions have been granted to claimant to allow him an opportunity to retain counsel in connection with this matter.
[2].The following papers have been read and considered on defendant’s motions (M-74338 and M-74339): Notice of Motion dated September 18, 2007 and filed September 19, 2007; Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Kimberly A. Kinirons, Esq. with annexed Exhibit A dated September 18, 2007 and filed September 19, 2007; Reply Affirmation of Kimberly A. Kinirons, Esq. with annexed Exhibit A dated June 2, 2008 and filed June 3, 2008; Notice of Motion dated October 29, 2007 and filed November 2, 2007; Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Claim of Kimberly A. Kinirons, Esq. with annexed Exhibit A dated October 29, 2007 and filed November 2, 2007.
[3].The motions address the original claim and the amended claim submitted by claimant.
[4].The following papers have been read and considered on claimant’s motions (M-74340 and M-75829): Hearing Requested Notice of Motion dated October 31, 2007 and filed November 2, 2007; Hearing Requested Affidavit in Support of Glenn-Vickers:Bey, J.D. with annexed Exhibits dated October 31, 2007 and filed November 2, 2007; Notice of Motion dated November 10, 2008 and filed November 14, 2008; Affidavit in Support of Dr. Glenn-Vickers:Bey JD sworn to November 10, 2008 and filed November 14, 2008; Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Court Ordered Subpoena Duces Tecum of Kimberly A. Kinirons, Esq. dated December 30, 2008 and filed January 8, 2009.