New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
KOCUR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-045-044, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-95572


Claimant's late claim motion denied due to failure to submit proposed claim.

Case information

UID: 2020-045-044
Claimant(s): AMY KOCUR
Claimant short name: KOCUR
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): None
Motion number(s): M-95572
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Gina M. Lopez-Summa
Claimant's attorney: Amy Kocur, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Jeanne L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: August 28, 2020
City: Hauppauge
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant's Notice of Motion; Claimant's Affirmation with Annexed Exhibits and Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition.

Claimant, Amy Kocur has brought this motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act (CCA) 10 (6) seeking an order granting permission to file a late claim. 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 [2004]). 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 [1982]). 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 include a proposed claim with her motion. Thus, this Court is unable to consider whether the proposed claim has merit as well as whether the proposed claim complies with the requirements of CCA 11 (see generally Barnes v State of New York, 164 AD3d 977 [3d Dept 2018]). As a result, this Court is constrained to deny the requested relief.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, claimant's motion to file a late claim is denied.

August 28, 2020

Hauppauge, New York

Gina M. Lopez-Summa

Judge of the Court of Claims