Opinion
# 2012-048-029 Claim No. 120118 Motion No. M-80644
02-16-2012
BOLDEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
The Court granted Claimant's motion, made pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), seeking to amend his Claim. Case information
UID: 2012-048-029 Claimant(s): SHAWNON BOLDEN Claimant short name: BOLDEN Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 120118 Motion number(s): M-80644 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: GLEN T. BRUENING Claimant's attorney: SHAWNON BOLDEN, Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Defendant's attorney: By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: February 16, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, Shawnon Bolden, commenced this action to recover damages he allegedly sustained to his property while an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility in Napanoch, Ulster County, under the supervision of the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS").Specifically, Claimant alleges that, on January 27, 2011, certain items of personal property were confiscated from his cell, and that DOCS' employees failed to hold those items for 14 days pending the arrival of a visitor and, upon Claimant's subsequent transfer to Arthur Kill Correctional Facility on or about January 30, 2011, DOCS' employees failed to also transfer those items of personal property in violation of DOCS' regulations. In February 2011, Claimant filed an Inmate Claim Form seeking to recover property damages for items of personal property confiscated. By Decision dated May 4, 2011, Claimant's institutional claim was denied. Claimant appealed that determination the same day and, prior to the issuance of a decision on his appeal, the instant Claim was filed on July 18, 2011Thereafter, by determination dated August 23, 2011, Claimant's administrative appeal was denied. Claimant now moves for leave to amend the Claim to clarify his theory of liability and to add certain factual information regarding the August 23, 2011 administrative determination (see Affidavit of Shawnon Bolden, sworn to on November 8, 2011 and the proposed Amended Claim attached thereto). Defendant's counsel, in a response to Claimant's motion, "neither opposes nor consents to claimant's motion and leaves the decision to the discretion of the Court" (see Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, Esq., dated November 29, 2011).
DOCS is now known as the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Inasmuch as the Claim relates to acts that occurred prior to the name change, this Decision will refer to the Executive Agency by its former name.
Pursuant to 7 NYCRR § 1700.4 (d), "[a]n inmate must file a claim appeal within five working days after initial disapproval of the claim. Failure to file within this time frame will result in the case being closed. The appeal should be reviewed within 15 working days of receipt by the reviewer."
CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his [or her] pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties" (see also 22 NYCRR § 206.7). Leave to amend a pleading under CPLR 3025 (b) is freely granted in the exercise of the trial court's discretion, "unless the proposed amendments plainly lack merit or would cause the nonmoving party to suffer prejudice or unfair surprise" (Bastian v State of New York, 8 AD3d 764, 765 [3d Dept 2004]). The proposed Amended Claim, insofar as it seeks only to clarify Claimant's theory of liability and provide additional relevant facts, including that his appeal was eventually denied, does not substantially alter the original Claim and will assist the parties in focusing on the issues to be litigated. Finally, no prejudice is argued by Defendant, and the record before the Court indicates that discovery has yet to take place (see e.g. Adirondack Combustion Tech., Inc. v Unicontrol, Inc., 17 AD3d 825, 826 [3d Dept 2005]). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Claimant's Motion No. M-80644 is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Claimant shall serve the Amended Claim that is attached to Claimant's moving papers by regular mail upon the Attorney General, and file an identical copy of such Amended Claim along with proof of service upon the Attorney General, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decision and Order.
February 16, 2012
Albany, New York
GLEN T. BRUENING
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court:
Claim, filed July 18, 2011;
Notice of Motion, filed November 14, 2011;
Affidavit of Shawnon Bolden, sworn to on November 8, 2011, with attached "Amended Claim" and Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J;
Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, Esq., filed November 29, 2011.