Opinion
# 2016-038-514 Claim No. None Motion No. M-87537
03-24-2016
MATTHEW CARLTON #14-R-2228 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
MATTHEW CARLTON, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christina Calabrese, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Motion for late claim relief denied. Motion unsupported by proposed claim. Although claimant submitted a Notice of Intention, it did not adequately state the manner in which the claim arose, and thus, could not be treated as a proposed claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-038-514 |
| Claimant(s): | MATTHEW CARLTON #14-R-2228 |
| Claimant short name: | CARLTON |
| 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-87537 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | MATTHEW CARLTON, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christina Calabrese, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 24, 2016 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, moves for permission pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) to file and serve a late claim seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an alleged assault and battery. Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that the motion is unsupported by a proposed claim. The motion will be denied for the following reasons without prejudice to a new motion for late claim relief.
Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) contains two preliminary requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Court to review the six enumerated factors set forth in the statute. The first is that the underlying Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) statute of limitations for asserting a like claim against a citizen of New York State has not yet expired. Claimant asserts that the incident giving rise to this claim occurred on June 11, 2015, and thus, it appears that the applicable one-year statute of limitations for assault and battery will not expire until June 11, 2016 (see CPLR § 215 [3]).
The second preliminary requirement is jurisdictional, and it requires that "[t]he claim proposed to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in section eleven of this act, shall accompany such application" (Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]). The failure to satisfy these pleading requirements is a basis, in and of itself, for denial of the motion (see Davis v State of New York, 28 AD2d 609, 610 [3d Dept 1967]; Rollison v State of New York, UID No. 2015-040-036 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., Aug. 28, 2015]; Roman v State of New York, UID No. 2015-040-030 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., June 15, 2015]; Harrell v State of New York, UID No. 2003-005-511 [Ct Cl, Corbett, J., April 3, 2003]). Claimant's motion is not supported by a proposed claim, but claimant has submitted a notice of intention to file a claim, which may be treated as a proposed claim if it satisfies the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11, as would be required of the proposed claim (see Dewitt v State of New York, UID No. 2014-018-508 [Ct Cl, Fitzpatrick, J., Apr. 2, 2014]; see also Powerhouse Auto v State of New York, UID No. 2013-049-032 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., June 25, 2013]).
As pertinent to a claim for personal injury, Court of Claims Act § 11 requires that the claim include "the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained" (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]). It is well-settled that a claim does not comply with section 11 (b) if its statement of the nature of the claim includes "[c]onclusory or general allegations of negligence that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent" (Heisler v State of State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 768 [4th Dept 1980]; see Cendales v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1165, 1167 [3d Dept 2003]; Sega v State of New York, 246 AD2d 753, 755 [3d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 805 [1998]). The notice of intention submitted by claimant states "the time, place and manner in which claim arose are as follows: Assault and Battery on June 11th 2015 at Upstate Correctional Facility 10 building C2 gallery approximate time 10:30 am - 11:30 am" (Notice of Intention to File Claim, dated Oct. 15, 2015). While this statement asserts the conclusory legal theories of assault and battery, the notice of intention does not include allegations that state by whom claimant was assaulted, or any other facts about the manner in which the claim arose (see Hirsh v State of New York, UID No. 2014-038-544 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Sept. 5, 2014]). Although additional allegations about the alleged assault and battery are contained in claimant's affidavit in support of the motion (see Carlton Affidavit, ¶ 14), they are not present in the notice of intention. Because the notice of intention does not comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), it cannot be treated as a proposed claim. Where a motion for late claim relief is unsupported by a proposed claim, granting the motion would constitute error (see Davis v State of New York, 28 AD2d at 610). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that Motion No. M-87537 is DENIED without prejudice.
March 24, 2016
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers considered: (1) Notice of Motion to File Late Claim, dated October 15, 2015; (2) Affidavit in Support of Motion to File Late Claim of Matthew Carlton, sworn to October 15, 2015, with attachments, including Notice of Intention to File Claim, dated and verified October 15, 2015; (3) Affirmation in Opposition of Christina Calabrese, AAG, dated November 23, 2015.