Motion to amend claim to add unrelated cause of action was denied.
|Claimant short name:||JACKSON|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Louis Jackson, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||August 30, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves to amend his claim to add a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b).
The claim filed October 29, 2009 alleges claimant was wrongfully confined to a cell without due process of law at Coxsackie Correctional Facility from December 12, 2008 to December 15, 2008. Claimant seeks to amend the claim to add a second cause of action relating to a different period of alleged wrongful confinement occurring at Mid-State Correctional Facility from December 28, 2009 through January 14, 2010.
Section 206.7 (b) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims (22 NYCRR § 206.7[b]) permits a pleading to be amended in the manner provided by CPLR 3025, "except that a party may amend a pleading once without leave of court within 40 days after its service, or at any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within 40 days after service of a pleading responding to it." CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "a party may amend his pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of the parties . . ."
It is well settled that leave to amend a pleading "is freely granted (see CPLR 3025 [b]) so
long as 'there is no prejudice to the nonmoving party and the amendment is not plainly lacking in merit' " (Paolucci v Mauro, 74 AD3d 1517, 1519  [citation omitted]; McCaskey, Davies and Assoc. v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755,757 ). Here, claimant seeks to amend the claim to add a cause of action which is unrelated to the original claim and appears to be time-barred. Whether the proposed claim for wrongful confinement is considered an intentional or unintentional tort, a claim was required to be filed and served within 90 days following its accrual unless a notice of intention to file a claim was served within such time (Court of Claims Act §§ 10  and [3-b]). A cause of action for wrongful confinement accrues on the day the confinement ends (Ramirez v State of New York, 171 Misc 2d 677 ; see also Collins v McMillan, 102 AD2d 860 ). Inasmuch as the proposed wrongful confinement cause of action accrued on January 14, 2010, the proposed claim appears to be untimely.(1) Even if this were not the case, however, the Court finds that joining two unrelated claims which accrued in different correctional facilities would be an improvident exercise of discretion.
Based on the foregoing, claimant's motion is denied.
August 30, 2010
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
1. While claimant alleges in paragraph "3" of the proposed claim that a notice of intention was "filed", this same allegation appears in the previously filed claim and appears to relate only to that claim and not the proposed amendments thereto.