From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chrysler v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 29, 2015
# 2015-010-005 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 29, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-010-005 Claim No. 124814 Motion No. M-86035

01-29-2015

GREGORY CHRYSLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

GREGORY CHRYSLER Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Movant's motion for reargument and/or for leave to serve and file a late claim, both denied. Movant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law and no appearance of merit.

Case information

UID:

2015-010-005

Claimant(s):

GREGORY CHRYSLER

Claimant short name:

CHRYSLER

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

124814

Motion number(s):

M-86035

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

Terry Jane Ruderman

Claimant's attorney:

GREGORY CHRYSLER Pro Se

Defendant's attorney:

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

January 29, 2015

City:

White Plains

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on movant's motion for reargument and/or for leave to serve and file a late claim:

Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit................................................1

Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits...............................................2

Movant seeks reargument of this Court's Decision and Order filed stamped November 20, 2014 which granted defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim was not timely filed (Defendant's Ex. A).

"A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law" (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]). A reargument motion is not "a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided" (id.). Movant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476 [1st Dept 1992]; Foley, 68 AD2d at 567). Accordingly, movant's application for reargument is DENIED.

The proposed claim alleges that on May 5, 2014, during movant's incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, he attempted to close a window in Room 103 of the school building when he was injured. Specifically, he seeks to alleges in paragraphs 10 to 14 of his proposed claim that:

"10. As I pushed against the window handle, the window started to close and then suddenly jammed.

11. Instantly, as the window jammed and as a result of the sudden jamming, my right wrist went through one of the window panes below the handle.

12. The window pane was made of ordinary glass.

13. The glass window pane broke and cut deeply into my wrist.

14. I suffered two deep cuts on my wrist and one deep cut on my thumb."

Movant seeks to allege that defendant was negligent in the maintenance of the window and in defendant's failure to replace the window with safety glass.

The determination of a motion for leave to file a late claim requires the Court to consider, among other relevant factors, the six factors set forth in subdivision 6 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act: (1) whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; (2) whether the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (3) whether the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (4) whether the claim appears to be meritorious; (5) whether the failure to file or serve a timely claim or serve a timely notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the State; and (6) whether the movant has another available remedy. The presence or absence of any one factor is not determinative and the list of factors is not exhaustive (see Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys. Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979 [1982]).

The Court has considered the above six factors including the absence of prejudice to defendant. Notably, unlike a party who has timely filed a claim, a party seeking to file a late claim has the heavier burden of demonstrating that the claim appears to be meritorious (see Nyberg v State of New York, 154 Misc 2d 199 [Ct Cl 1992]; Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1 [Ct Cl 1977]). "A general allegation of negligence on the part of the State is insufficient to establish a meritorious cause of action" and movant's own unsubstantiated allegations do not show an appearance of merit (Witko v State of New York, 212 AD2d 889, 891 [3d Dept 1995]; Klingler v State of New York, 213 AD2d 378 [2d Dept 1995] [movant's unsupported opinion does not suffice to establish merit of their claim]).

There has been no showing of an appearance of merit regarding the proposed claim against the State and the allegations of its negligence being a contributing cause of movant's accident. Indeed, it is just as likely that the accident was caused by movant's own negligence (see Ingersoll v Liberty Bank of Buffalo, 278 NY 1, 7 [1938] ["(w)here the facts proven show that there are several possible causes of an injury, for one or more of which the defendant was not responsible, and it is just as reasonable and probable that the injury was the result of one cause as the other, plaintiff cannot have a recovery, since he has failed to prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the injury"]).

Accordingly, the Court finds that movant failed to establish the appearance of merit of his proposed claim and that this factor weighed heavily in the Court's determination of whether to grant the application despite the absence of prejudice to defendant (see Langner v State of New York, 65 AD3d 780 [3d Dept 2009] [late claim application denied even though defendant admitted no prejudice where conclusory allegations were not enough to show a meritorious cause of action]; Matter of Brown v State of New York, 6 AD3d 756 [3d Dept 2004] [late claim application denied where excuse was inadequate and proposed claim was of questionable merit]).

Upon careful consideration, the Court DENIES movant's application for leave to serve and file a late claim (see Morris v Doe, 104 AD3d 921 [2d Dept 2013]).

January 29, 2015

White Plains, New York

Terry Jane Ruderman

Judge of the Court of Claims


Summaries of

Chrysler v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 29, 2015
# 2015-010-005 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 29, 2015)
Case details for

Chrysler v. State

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY CHRYSLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Jan 29, 2015

Citations

# 2015-010-005 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 29, 2015)