New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
MANISCALCO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-053-527, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-95326

Synopsis

Pro se inmate seeks permission to late file a claim alleging wrongful confinement. The motion is denied without prejudice. Movant failed to include a proposed claim and address the factors set forth in Court of Claims Act 10 (6).

Case information

UID: 2020-053-527
Claimant(s): ANTHONY MANISCALCO
Claimant short name: MANISCALCO
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): NONE
Motion number(s): M-95326
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: J. DAVID SAMPSON
Claimant's attorney: ANTHONY MANISCALCO, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. LETITIA JAMES
New York State Attorney General
BY: Tamara B. Christie, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: July 16, 2020
City: Buffalo
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Movant Anthony Maniscalco, an inmate proceeding pro se, brings motion no. M-95326 seeking permission to late file a claim alleging wrongful confinement while he was incarcerated at Groveland Correctional Facility (Groveland). Defendant opposes the motion.

A motion for permission to file and serve a late claim must be brought "before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen of the state would be barred under the provisions of article two of the civil practice law and rules" (Court of Claims Act 10 [6]). A negligence action against a private citizen would have to be commenced within three years of accrual of the claim (CPLR 214) while an action based on an intentional tort must be brought within one year of accrual (CPLR 215). In his supporting affidavit, movant alleges that he was wrongfully confined to SHU and Keeplock on the basis of a false positive urinalysis test due to the negligent and deliberately indifferent actions of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Movant alleges that his claim "occurred" on September 18, 2019 when the disciplinary determination of the Superintendent following his August 7, 2019 hearing was reversed (Movant's Exhibit 1).

Basically, movant is attempting to commence a claim for wrongful confinement. The statute of limitations for wrongful confinement is one year (CPLR 215 [3]). A prison inmate's claim for wrongful confinement accrues and the limitations period begins to run when the inmate is released from confinement and not when the disciplinary determination is administratively reversed as argued by movant (Campos v State, 139 AD3d 1276 [3d Dept 2016]). Nowhere in movant's supporting papers does he indicate when he was released from the improper confinement. From movant's affidavit, however, it appears that the Superintendent's hearing which resulted in movant's confinement was held on August 7, 2019. Presumably, movant was released from the improper confinement some time after that date. As movant's motion was brought within one year of the August 7, 2019 hearing date, which would be the earliest accrual date, this motion is timely.

Section 10 (6) of the Court of Claims Act also requires that "[t]he claim proposed to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in section eleven of this act, shall accompany such application." The failure to include the proposed claim is a basis, in and of itself, for denial of the motion (Davis v State of New York, 28 AD2d 609 [3d Dept 1967]). While movant generally refers to "the attached claim" in his supporting affidavit, no proposed claim is attached to his motion papers. Moreover, not all of the information which must be included in the proposed claim is even mentioned in movant's affidavit. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act 11 (b), "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose [and] the nature of same . . .". As previously noted, the Court cannot even determine when any proposed claim accrued as there is no mention in movant's papers as to when he was released from SHU or Keeplock confinement.

Based on the foregoing, movant's motion no. M-95326 for permission to late file a claim is denied without prejudice. Movant may file a subsequent motion for permission to late file a claim that includes a proposed claim which is in compliance with Court of Claims Act 11 (b) and is accompanied by an affidavit which addresses all of the factors set forth in Court of Claims Act 10 (6). Any subsequent motion must be filed prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, which, on a wrongful confinement claim, begins to run from the date movant was released from the allegedly improper confinement.

July 16, 2020

Buffalo, New York

J. DAVID SAMPSON

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following were read and considered by the Court:

1. Notice of motion and affidavit of Anthony Maniscalco sworn to January 6, 2020, with annexed Exhibits 1-2;

2. Opposing affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Tamara B. Christie dated May 5, 2020.