Opinion
# 2016-040-031 Claim No. 126075 Motion No. M-88198
05-25-2016
JASON EARL CAMPO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Jason Earl Campo, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Pro se Claimant's motion to amend Claim granted.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-040-031 |
| Claimant(s): | JASON EARL CAMPO |
| Claimant short name: | CAMPO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126075 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88198 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Jason Earl Campo, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 25, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Claimant, Jason Earl Campo, appearing pro se, to amend his Claim, is granted.
This pro se Claim was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on May 1, 2015 and alleges that, on August 17, 2013, while incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Franklin"), Claimant re-injured his right shoulder working at his job at Franklin while lifting equipment out of the recreational yard shack that is kept there for the inmates. He asserts that he had surgery on his right shoulder on April 4, 2013, four months prior to this injury. He further states that Franklin received documentation regarding the disability to his shoulder from the county jail where he was incarcerated prior to being transferred to Franklin. The Claim seeks damages in the amount of $2,500,000.00.
In his affidavit submitted in support of his Motion, Claimant asserts that he seeks to amend the Claim to add information he obtained from his medical records and to provide a breakdown of his asserted damages (Campo Affidavit, ¶ 5). He asserts that he is requesting $1,000,000.00 for lost earnings and permanent disability; $1,000,000.00 for pain and suffering; and $500,000.00 for mental anguish (id., ¶ 4).
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." The statute further provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just." Leave to amend a Claim should be freely granted, provided the proposed amendment does not prejudice or surprise defendant, is not "patently devoid of merit," and is not "palpably insufficient" (Shabazz v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 83 AD3d 815, 815 [2d Dept 2011]; Dmytryszyn v Herschman, 78 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2d Dept 2010]). "Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine" (Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983], quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025:5; Arcuri v Ramos, 7 AD3d 741, 741-742 [2d Dept 2004]).
In his affirmation in opposition to the Motion, the Assistant Attorney General does not assert that Defendant would be unduly prejudiced by this amendment.
The Court has reviewed the Claim and the proposed Amended Claim and finds that the proposed Amended Claim asserts the same causes of action as the Claim. The only difference the Court can discern is that the Amended Claim is reworded and provides additional detail than that reflected in the Claim and also provides a detailed breakdown of the ad damnum clause.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State will not be prejudiced by allowing Claimant to serve and file an amended claim.
Therefore, Claimant's Motion to serve and file an amended claim is granted and Claimant is directed to serve and file his Amended Claim, in the form attached to his motion, within forty (40) days of the date of filing of this Decision and Order, as provided in Section 206.7(b) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims. Defendant's answer to the Amended Claim shall be served and filed within forty (40) days after service of the Amended Claim.
May 25, 2016
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's Motion to amend his Claim: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support & Exhibits attached 1 Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits attached 2 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer