Pro se inmate moves for leave to file a late claim. The motion is denied without prejudice as movant failed to include a proposed claim. As motion is denied on procedural grounds, the Court declines to address the substantive arguments raised by defendant.
|Claimant short name:||JACKSON|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||J. DAVID SAMPSON|
|Claimant's attorney:||AARON JACKSON, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||HON. LETITIA JAMES
New York State Attorney General
BY: Timothy J. Flynn, Esq.
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||July 22, 2021|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Inmate Aaron Jackson seeks leave pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) to file a late claim against the State for allegedly violating his religious rights. Movant alleges that a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employee punched him in the rib cage and threatened him with further physical violence if he did not agree to have his dreadlocks cut when he presented to Lakeview Shock Correctional Facility on June 29, 2020.
Defendant opposes the motion on procedural and substantive grounds. Defendant argues that the application is procedurally defective because movant's notice of motion and affidavit in support are improperly combined into a single document. Defendant also opposes the motion based upon Mr. Jackson's failure to include a copy of his proposed claim. Substantively, Defendant argues that the section 10 (6) factors to be considered by the Court weigh against a grant of discretionary late claim relief. For reasons stated below, the Court will deny the application, without prejudice to the filing of another motion supported by a proposed claim.
The Court finds that the motion is procedurally defective based upon movant's failure to attach a proposed claim. Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) requires that an application for late claim relief shall be accompanied by "[t]he claim proposed to be filed." Mr. Jackson's failure to attach a proposed claim requires denial of his motion as procedurally defective (see Davis v State of New York, 28 AD2d 609, 610 [3d Dept 1967] [addressing former Court of Claims Act § 10 (5)]).
In light of the Court's decision to deny the application on procedural grounds and in the absence of the proposed claim, the Court declines to address the substantive arguments made by Defendant against a grant of late claim relief.
Based upon the above it is hereby
ORDERED, that the motion is denied, without prejudice to a further application for late claim relief supported by a proposed claim.
July 22, 2021
Buffalo, New York
J. DAVID SAMPSON
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following were read and considered by the Court:
1) Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim of Aaron Jackson, sworn to March 2, 2021, filed March 15, 2021, with attached exhibits;
2) Affidavit in Opposition to Motion Seeking Permission to File Late of Timothy J. Flynn, sworn to May 4, 2021, filed May 6, 2021, with attached exhibits.