New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
BOWERS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-015-110, Claim No. 129652, Motion No. M-91649


Claimant's motion to amend his claim was denied where the statement submitted in support of his motion was unsworn and the proposed claim was unverified.

Case information

UID: 2018-015-110
Claimant(s): DAQUAN BOWERS
Claimant short name: BOWERS
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 129652
Motion number(s): M-91649
Cross-motion number(s):
Claimant's attorney: Daquan Bowers, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: March 2, 2018
City: Saratoga Springs
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, proceeding pro se, moves to amend his claim to "clarify" that it pertains only to the loss of his personal property (unsworn statement in support of motion, 3).

Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, filed a claim alleging causes of action for negligent supervision and bailment. According to the filed claim, claimant was assaulted by inmates in an unsupervised area of Great Meadow Correctional Facility on February 3, 2017, allegedly sustaining a three-inch laceration to the right side of his face which required 16 sutures. The claim further alleges that following his transfer to involuntary protective custody claimant's personal property was packed by correction staff, but not all of his property was returned. He seeks damages in the amount of $65,000.00 for his personal injuries and the value of his lost property. In his proposed amended claim, claimant seeks damages of $250.00 for only the loss of his personal property.

Claimant's statement submitted in support of the motion is not sworn before a notary public, nor is the proposed claim verified. Upon consideration of the unusual nature of the claimant's proposed amendment, withdrawing what appears to be his primary cause of action, the failure to abide by the usual formalities of execution cannot be ignored (see CPLR 2214 [b]). Nor can the fact that the proposed claim is not verified as required (Court of Claims Act 11 [b]; CPLR 3025 [b]; CPLR 105 [u]).

Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.

March 2, 2018

Saratoga Springs, New York


Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of motion, dated January 6, 2018;
  2. Unsworn statement, dated January 6, 2018, with exhibits;
  3. Affirmation in opposition, dated January 26, 2018.