New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
HALL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-071, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-95560

Synopsis

Motion for late claim relief was denied as movant failed to submit sworn facts in support of his motion and the proposed claim was unverified.

Case information

UID: 2020-015-071
Claimant(s): ROYAL HALL
Claimant short name: HALL
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) : The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): NONE
Motion number(s): M-95560
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: Royal Hall, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: No Appearance
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: August 31, 2020
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Movant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, seeks leave to file a late claim alleging a cause of action for wrongful confinement.

Movant's claim arises from a prison disciplinary hearing in which he was allegedly denied his due process right to present certain evidence and call certain witnesses to testify on his behalf.

In support of his application movant submitted his own affidavit in which he states only that the Court should grant his application, and an improperly verified proposed claim with attachments.(2) In determining late claim applications such as this, Court of Claims Act 10 (6) requires the Court to consider:

"whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy" (Court of Claims Act 10 [6]).

Movant did not address the statutory factors in his application and although a proposed claim was submitted as required, it is unverified. The Court has reviewed the supporting papers accompanying the motion and while they reflect the fact that the determination of guilt following the hearing was reversed and expunged from movant's institutional records, they do not verify movant's essential allegations regarding the alleged due process violations during the conduct of the hearing. Accordingly, while the due process violations which allegedly occurred may form the basis for a wrongful confinement claim, the supporting facts are unsworn and, as such, require denial of the instant motion.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.

August 31, 2020

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Undated notice of motion;
  2. Affidavit in support sworn to February 27, 2020, with attachments.

2. Movant's signature appears as the person being duly sworn but the oath is unsigned by the movant.