New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
STOECKERT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-016-054, Claim No. 118229, Motion No. M-78234


Case information

UID: 2010-016-054
Claimant short name: STOECKERT
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 118229
Motion number(s): M-78234
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Felberbaum, Halbridge & Wirth
By: Samuel E. Felberbaum, Esq.
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: John M. Hunter, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: August 18, 2010
City: New York
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant Steven Stoeckert moves for an order granting him leave to amend his claim or, in the alternative, for leave to file a late claim pursuant to 10.6 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). Mr. Stoeckert's claim arises from a September 2, 2009 automobile accident involving his vehicle and a vehicle owned by the State and operated by one of its employees. Claimant makes this motion because his notice of intention "makes a claim for personal injuries [but] does not contain a claim for property damage or a specific claim as to loss in excess of basic economic loss," which claimant now seeks to assert. See 6 of the March 10, 2010 affirmation of Samuel E. Felberbaum.

Defendant implicitly argues that by failing to refer to property damage and economic loss in his notice of intention, claimant has failed to state the "nature" of his claim, which, per 11.b of the Act, must be included in a notice of intention. In that regard, in Matthias v State of New York, 6 Misc 3d 1025(A) (Ct Cl 2005), the court found that "the allegation that a state employee was involved in an accident with a claimant at a specified place and time and that the accident was the result of the negligence of the state employee in the operation of the state vehicle sufficiently sets forth the 'nature' of the claim so as to afford the opportunity for a prompt and complete investigation and it therefore complies with [11.b]."(1) As in Matthias, defendant here has provided no authority to suggest that more is required under the Act. Moreover, 11.b of the Act specifically provides that a notice of intention need not include "the items of damage or injuries." In short, the fact that Stoeckert's notice of intention did not specifically refer to property damage or other economic loss does not preclude him from including such items in his claim.

As claimant timely served his notice of intention on November 16, 2009, pursuant to 10.3 of the Act, he would be required to serve and file his claim within two years of September 2, 2009. In fact, Stoeckert has already served and filed his claim (no. 118229), which in his motion papers he refers to as "the Claim with amendments," although no prior claim was served or filed. Such claim seeks damages for personal injury, property damage, medical bills and lost wages. Accordingly, there is no need for amendment of the claim or for late claim relief.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions(2) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-78234 be denied as unnecessary.

August 18, 2010

New York, New York

Alan C. Marin

Judge of the Court of Claims

1. Such allegations are contained in the notice of intention in the instant case.

2. The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affirmation in support, annexed affidavits and exhibits A through H; and defendant's June 7, 2010 affirmation.