Motion for late claim relief was adjourned to permit defendant to respond.
|Claimant(s):||ESLAM HASSAN, 16 A 4333|
|Claimant short name:||HASSAN|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Eslam Hassan, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Thomas J. Reilly, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||September 10, 2019|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Movant, a pro se inmate, seeks leave to serve and file a late claim alleging damages for assault and battery and violations of the New York and Federal Constitutions.
Movant alleges he was confined to an observation unit at Great Meadow Correctional Facility (Great Meadow) from January 4, 2019 through April 8, 2019. According to the movant, he was assaulted by correction officers on January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019. In addition, he was allegedly deprived of food, water, clothing and bedding during the time he was confined to the observation unit and, on several occasions, medications were withheld in retaliation for prior conduct. Notably, this is movant's third motion for leave to serve and file a late claim. The first such motion was denied by Decision and Order dated July 8, 2019 because movant failed to support the motion with a copy of the proposed claim. The second motion was granted to the extent movant sought to allege a cause of action for an assault and battery that allegedly occurred on January 4, 2019; however, the motion was denied with respect to his proposed cause of action for medical negligence and/or malpractice. While the causes of action proposed in the instant motion arose during the same period of movant's confinement to the observation unit at Great Meadow, they allege separate and discrete assaults not previously asserted on the prior motion.(1)
Movant also alleges as a basis for the instant motion that the conditions of his confinement at Great Meadow's Observation Unit violated both the New York and Federal Constitutions.
The State opposes the instant motion on the ground it was not served with a copy of the motion papers and only learned of the motion when it received a letter from the Office of the Chief Clerk acknowledging the receipt of same. However, movant's affidavit of service, filed together with the motion, indicates that the motion was served on the Attorney General on
July 26, 2019. To resolve the problem, a copy of the motion papers is provided to the Attorney General together with a copy of this Decision and Order and the motion is adjourned toOctober 16, 2019 to enable the Attorney General's Office to respond.
September 10, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. Movant's proposed claim does not constitute issue "splitting," which is prohibited, inasmuch as the assaults which were the subject of his prior application allegedly occurred on January 4, 2019 and the assaults which are the subject of the instant claim allegedly occurred on January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019 (see generally Siegel, N.Y. Practice, § 220).