Claimant, pro se unmate, file a notice of motion only seeking permission to file a late claim. No affidavit nor proposed claim filed.
|Claimant short name:||NOEL|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|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|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
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 ). 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 ). 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