Opinion
# 2016-018-723 Claim No. NONE Motion No. M-88245
05-12-2016
ANDRE WALTON v. STATE OF NEW YORK
ANDRE WALTON Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Motion is denied, it is not clear what relief is being sought by Claimant.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-018-723 |
| Claimant(s): | ANDRE WALTON |
| Claimant short name: | WALTON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | NONE |
| Motion number(s): | M-88245 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | ANDRE WALTON Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 12, 2016 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Movant has filed a document entitled, "Motion of Intention to File Claim" pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act, also referencing CPLR sections 3016 (a), 3013 and 3212. In the filed documents, Movant appears to raise issues sounding in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malpractice, negligence for inadequate medical care, and "unlawful imprisonment" for improper sentencing based upon the lack of jurisdiction of the sentencing court. The Clerk of the Court has, understandably, treated the document as a motion for permission to file a late claim. Defendant has responded, opposing the motion on the basis that no proposed claim was attached to the documents filed. Movant has submitted a "Reply to Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Late File."
It is not at all clear what Movant seeks by the documents he filed with the Clerk's office. Although he indicates in his reply papers that he did not bring a motion seeking permission to file a late claim, and does not seek permission to treat a notice of intention as a claim, he also states in his reply that he respectfully request that his "motion in all respect [sic] be granted." He references "The motion of intention to file claim against the State of New York pursuant to section 10 And 11 of the Court of Claims Act . . . ". Yet, if Movant does not seek late claim relief (Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]), and does not seek to have a notice of intention treated as a claim (Court of Claims Act § 10 [8]), without an existing filed claim, there is no other relief under Court of Claims Act sections 10 and 11 this Court could grant based upon the documents presented. Nor does CPLR 3016 (a) (describing the required pleading particularity for an action for libel or slander), 3013 (describing general pleading particularity) or 3212 (motions for summary judgment) appear applicable to Movant's submissions.
Accordingly, since it is not clear what relief Movant seeks, this Court DENIES Movant's motion.
May 12, 2016
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court has considered the following in deciding this motion: 1) "Motion of Intention to File Claim" of Andre Walton, pro se, in support with attachments thereto. 2) Affirmation of Anthony Rotondi, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, in opposition. 3) "Reply to Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Late File" of Andre Walton, pro se, sworn to April 5, 2016, in support.