Opinion
# 2013-045-001 Motion No. M-82223
01-08-2013
EDWARD L. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Pro Se late claim motion denied. Case information
UID: 2013-045-001 Claimant(s): EDWARD L. WILLIAMS Claimant short name: WILLIAMS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): None Motion number(s): M-82223 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA Claimant's attorney: Edward L. Williams, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Faisal H. Sheikh, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: January 8, 2013 City: Hauppauge Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant's Notice of Motion, Claimant's Affidavit in Support with annexed documents, Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and Claimant's "Affirmation" in Response.
Claimant, Edward L.Williams, filed a motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act (CCA) § 10(6) seeking an order granting him permission to file a late claim.
It is well settled that "[t]he Court of Claims is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny an application for permission to file a late claim" (Matter of Brown v State of New York, 6 AD3d 756, 757 [2004]). In determining whether relief to file a late claim should be granted, the Court must take into consideration the factors set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10(6) (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV, Inc. v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys. Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979 [1982]). The factors are not necessarily exhaustive, nor is the presence or absence of any particular one controlling (id.). Those factors are whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; whether the defendant had an opportunity to investigate; whether the defendant was substantially prejudiced; whether the claim appears to be meritorious and whether the claimant has any other available remedy. A proposed claim to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11, shall accompany any late claim application.
Claimant does not offer any legally acceptable excuse for the delay in the filing of a claim.
The most significant issue to be considered is that of merit. Claimant has submitted a proposed claim which does not set forth a viable cause of action against the State of New York in this matter. To permit the filing of a legally deficient claim would be an exercise in futility (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254 [2d Dept 1993]). The underlying actions in the proposed claim apparently took place in August 2010 when he was arrested by Nassau County Police Officers and thereafter prosecuted by the Nassau County District Attorney's Office.
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction wherein claims primarily against the State of New York are brought (see CCA § 9). Even though the "District Attorney is in a sense part of the judicial system of the State and prosecutes criminal causes in the name of the People of the State [the District Attorney] does not act as a State officer or employee in any such sense as would make the State liable for his wrongdoing" (Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60, 61 [1961]). Consequently, claims brought against Nassau County Police Officers and the Nassau County District Attorney's Office are impermissible in the Court of Claims.
The remainder of claimant's proposed claim does not clearly set forth a meritorious cause of action against the State of New York or its actors (see Montesano v State of New York, 11 AD3d 435 [2d Dept 2004]; Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214 [2002]). Finally it must be noted that defendant is not required to ferret out or assemble information that the Court of Claims obligates a claimant to assemble in the claim (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 208 [2003]).
The next three factors, notice, an opportunity to investigate and prejudice are interrelated and as such will be considered together. After weighing all the circumstances involved in the present action, these factors are found to be in defendant's favor.
Claimant may have an alternative remedy against non-State actors in another venue. Thus, this factor is found to be in defendant's favor.
Based upon the foregoing and having considered the statutory factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10(6), the Court finds that the factors weigh against claimant's application. Thus, claimant's motion to file a late claim is denied.
January 8, 2013
Hauppauge, New York
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims