New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
NOEL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-045-051, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-90927

Synopsis

Claimant, pro se unmate, file a notice of motion only seeking permission to file a late claim. No affidavit nor proposed claim filed.

Case information

UID: 2017-045-051
Claimant(s): JOVON NOEL
Claimant short name: NOEL
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-90927
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant's attorney: Jovon Noel, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: December 20, 2017
City: Hauppauge
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant's Notice of Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim and Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to File Late Claim.

Claimant, Jovon Noel, a pro se inmate, filed a notice of motion to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act (CCA) 10 (6). Defendant, the State of New York, opposes the motion.

It is well settled that "[t]he Court of Claims is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny an application for permission to file a late claim" (Matter of Brown v State of New York, 6 AD3d 756, 757 [2004]). In determining whether relief to file a late claim should be granted the Court must take into consideration the factors set forth in Court of Claims Act 10(6) (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV, Inc. v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys. Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979 [1982]). The factors are not necessarily exhaustive, nor is the presence or absence of any particular one controlling (id.). Those factors are whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; whether the defendant had an opportunity to investigate; whether the defendant was substantially prejudiced; whether the claim appears to be meritorious and whether the claimant has any other available remedy. A proposed claim to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in CCA 11, shall accompany any late claim application.

Claimant failed to file a supporting affidavit addressing, inter alia, the factors required to be considered by the Court by CCA 10 (6). Additionally, claimant failed to include a proposed claim with his submission which is also required by CCA 10 (6). As a result the Court is unable to determine whether late claim relief is warranted in this matter.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, claimant's motion to file a late claim is denied.

December 20, 2017

Hauppauge, New York

GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA

Judge of the Court of Claims