|Claimant short name:||EDWARDS|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||Alan C. Marin|
|Claimant's attorney:||O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle & Oleson
|Defendant's attorney:||Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: John M. Hunter, Esq., AAG
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||July 26, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
In this claim, which was filed and served on January 3, 2007, it is alleged that Roxanne Edwards, a patient at Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, was assaulted several times by other patients at the facility in October of 2006. The State's answer, which was filed on February 9, 2007, contains a counterclaim seeking the sum of $164,710.04 for services provided to claimant while a patient at Kinsgboro and Pilgrim Psychiatric Centers through December 31, 2006. Defendant now seeks to amend its answer to include an additional $792,611.37 for services rendered since that date through December 31, 2009, for a total counterclaim of $957,321.41.
Leave to amend pleadings is freely given; there is an appropriate basis for the amendment under §43.03 of the Mental Hygiene Law; the subject of the amendment is not jurisdictional for the purposes of the Court of Claims Act; and claimant does not oppose the motion. See, e.g., Lynch v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 29, 2008 (unreported, claim no. 113645, motion no. M-74759, UID #2008-030-526(1) , Scuccimarra, J.); Brahinsky v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 28, 2002 (claim no. 102555, motion nos. M-64576 and CM-64834, UID #2002-016-069, Marin, J.).
In view of the foregoing, having considered the submissions(2) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-78174 be granted and that defendant shall serve and file its amended answer within thirty (30) days of the filing of this decision and order.
July 26, 2010
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found on the Court's website: www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.
2. The Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A through D.