Claimant's motion for permission to file and serve a late claim was denied as a proposed claim was not submitted with the motion and the claimant failed to address the details or merit of his proposed claim in his affidavit submitted in support of the motion.
|Claimant short name:||LIGGINS|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Korey Liggins, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||January 12, 2018|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Movant seeks permission to file and serve a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6).
In support of his motion to file and serve a late claim, movant, a pro se inmate, discusses the statutory factors required for consideration on a motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) and, with respect to the merit of the proposed claim, states "My claim is meritorious as indicated by my proposed claim, [attached] as Exhibit 1[.] The claim is based upon wrongful confinement" (Affidavit in Support of Motion, ¶ 6). Notwithstanding the above statement, no proposed claim was submitted with the motion and the details of movant's allegedly wrongful confinement were not otherwise set forth.
Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) requires that "[t]he claim proposed to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in section eleven of this act, shall accompany" an application for permission to file and serve a late claim. Movant's failure to support his application with a copy of his proposed claim warrants denial of the motion on this basis alone (see Davis v State of New York, 28 AD2d 609 [3d Dept 1967]; Ormsby v State of New York, UID No. 2011-040-006 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., January 12, 2011]). Moreover, the affidavit submitted in support of the motion failed to establish the potential merit of the claim, the most important factor for determination on an application to file a late claim (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254 [2d Dept 1993]; Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1 ).
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
January 12, 2018
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims