Opinion
2021-00506
05-11-2022
Jarnells E. Laignelet, appellant, v. State of New York, respondent.
Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (John M. Shaw of counsel), for appellant. Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady LLP, Garden City, NY (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick and Matthew S. Libroia of counsel), for respondent.
Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (John M. Shaw of counsel), for appellant.
Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady LLP, Garden City, NY (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick and Matthew S. Libroia of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (David A. Weinstein, J.), dated November 20, 2020. The order denied the claimant's motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Court of Claims Act requires a claim to specify, among other things, "the time when and place where" the claim arose (Court of Claims Act § 11[b]; see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 N.Y.3d 201, 207; Criscuola v State of New York, 188 A.D.3d 645, 645). "'The purpose of the section 11(b) pleading requirements is to provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable [a defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability'" (Criscuola v State of New York, 188 A.D.3d at 646, quoting Sinski v State of New York, 265 A.D.2d 319, 319). A failure to comply with the requirements set forth in section 11(b) of the Court of Claims Act is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim (see Criscuola v State of New York, 188 A.D.3d at 646; Hargrove v State of New York, 138 A.D.3d 777, 777-778).
Here, the claimant's "second proposed claim" alleged, inter alia, that he fell from a ladder in April 2019 when he was working in a building on property owned by the State of New York (hereinafter the property). In June 2020, more than a year after the alleged accident, the claimant, in this second proposed claim, narrowed the location of the accident down to 2 possible buildings on the property, upon which there are more than 50 buildings. Since the second proposed claim failed to provide a sufficient description of the place of the accident, it was not detailed enough to satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) (see Constable v State of New York, 172 A.D.3d 681, 682; see e.g. Sharief v State of New York, 164 A.D.3d 851, 852).
Moreover, although Court of Claims Act § 10(6) "'permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim'" (Sharief v State of New York, 164 A.D.3d at 852, quoting Tucholski v State of New York, 122 A.D.3d 612, 612), here, the claimant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his delay in filing the claim and that the proposed claim was potentially meritorious (see Sharief v State of New York, 164 A.D.3d at 852; see e.g. Ortiz v State of New York, 78 A.D.3d 1314, 1315, affd 17 N.Y.3d 389).
Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly denied the claimant's motion for leave to file a late claim.
DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, MALTESE and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.