New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

KEITT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-040-038, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-76402


Synopsis


Motion to late file denied as proposed claim not submitted as required by statute (CCA § 10[6]).

Case Information

UID:
2009-040-038
Claimant(s):
DEVIN KEITT
Claimant short name:
KEITT
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-76402
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
Devin Keitt, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Joan Matalavage, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 28, 2009
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. Here, Movant has asserted in his motion papers that the State violated his rights by not allowing him to participate in Ramadan services on September 1, 2008. Thus, it appears that the underlying statute of limitations for negligence has not yet expired (CPLR 214[5]).

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]; Snider v State of New York, Ct Cl, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-75720, dated January 15, 2009, McCarthy, J. [UID No. 2009-040-003]; Nestel v State of New York, Ct Cl, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-71607, filed May 31, 2006, Mignano, J.; Harrell v State of New York, Ct Cl, 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.


April 28, 2009
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


Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim,
Affidavit of Service 1

Affidavit in Opposition 2