Late claim motion was denied.
|Claimant short name:||DIAZ|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK & FASHION INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||Alan C. Marin|
|Claimant's attorney:||The Shanker Law Firm, P.C.
By: Steven J. Shanker, Esq.
|Defendant's attorney:||Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||May 10, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant Estella Diaz moves for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). In her proposed claim, Ms. Diaz alleges that on January 21, 2009, she slipped and fell on a crack in the sidewalk outside the Fashion Institute of Technology in Manhattan.
Section 10.6 provides that the Court shall consider: whether (1) defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) the defendant was substantially prejudiced; (4) the claimant has any other available remedy; (5) the delay was excusable and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious.
However, the above of course assumes jurisdiction, which does not lie here. The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over the Fashion Institute of Technology, a community college established under the auspices of the Board of Education of the City of New York. Education Law §6306, subdivisions 3 and 3-a; compare with Education Law §6224.4. See, e.g., three cases decided by the Hon. Faviola A. Soto of the Court of Claims on March 30, 2009: Pychynski v State of New York (unreported, claim no. 116001, motion no. M-75904); Kisiel-Sadowski v State of New York (unreported, claim no. 116002, motion no. M-75905); and Delicio v State of New York (unreported, claim no. 116003, motion no. M-75879).
Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-78049 be denied.
May 10, 2010
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A through G; and defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibit A.