Motion for permission to file a late claim denied. Late claim relief is not available for lost property claims.
|Claimant short name:||ALSTON|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||W. BROOKS DeBOW|
|Claimant's attorney:||JOHN ALSTON, Pro se|
|Defendant's attorney:||LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General
of the State of New York
By: Elizabeth A. Gavin, Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||July 23, 2021|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant, an individual currently incarcerated in a State correctional facility, seeks permission pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) to file a late claim seeking compensation for lost personal property. Defendant opposes the motion, which will be denied for the reasons that follow.
The Court's discretionary authority to grant late claim relief pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) does not extend to claims for lost personal property brought pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (9) (see Encarnacion v State of New York, 133 AD3d 1049, 1050 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 919 ; Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001 [4th Dept 2004]), and this motion for late claim relief, which seeks compensation for a lost package at Green Haven Correctional Facility in April 2019 (see Proposed Claim, ¶¶ 2 [A] - [c]), must be denied.(1)
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that motion number M-96721 is DENIED.
July 23, 2021
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim, undated;
2. Proposed Verified Claim, sworn to March 31, 2021, with unenumerated attachments;
3. Affirmation of Elizabeth A. Gavin, AAG, in Opposition, with Exhibits 1-4;
4. Alston Reply, undated.
1. Notwithstanding that claimant's submission in reply to defendant's opposition papers was untimely filed on July 21, 2021, the return date for the instant motion (see CPLR 2214 [b] [reply affidavits to be served "at least one day" before a motion "is noticed to be heard"]), the Court considered claimant's reply in the interests of hearing the motion on the merits.