Opinion
# 2019-028-502 Claim No. 131182 Motion No. M-92376
01-22-2019
JEFFREY COFIELD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JEFFREY COFIELD, PRO SE HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Matthew H. Feinberg, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2019-028-502 |
| Claimant(s): | JEFFREY COFIELD |
| Claimant short name: | COFIELD |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 131182 |
| Motion number(s): | M-92376 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | RICHARD E. SISE |
| Claimant's attorney: | JEFFREY COFIELD, PRO SE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Matthew H. Feinberg, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 22, 2019 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read on defendant's motion to dismiss:
1. Notice of Motion;
2. Affirmation in Support by Matthew H. Feinberg, Assistant Attorney General;
3. Memorandum of Law and attached exhibits
4. Filed Paper: Claim.
Jeffrey Cofield, an inmate proceeding pro se, alleges that defendant's agents at Sing Sing Correctional Facility failed to properly maintain a dryer in the laundry room, causing claimant to suffer injury on December 27, 2016 "at 9:30 o'clock." [Claim No. 131182, ¶4]. More specifically, Mr. Cofield alleges that while working at his assigned job in the laundry room one of the dryers signaled that a cycle had ended, claimant opened the dryer door and placed his hand inside to inspect the laundry. When he did so, the machine suddenly started spinning because of a malfunctioning door safety mechanism. Claimant's left arm became entangled up in the laundry. He suffered "a tear in his left front deltoid muscle", and has limited movement in his left arm. [Claim No. 131182, ¶5].
A Notice of Intention to File a Claim [NI] was served upon the Attorney General's office on March 17, 2017, alleging that "on December 2016" while working in the "laundry area" "at about 9:00 p.m.", claimant injured his left shoulder. [Feinberg Affirmation, ¶3, Exhibit A]. The NI states that Mr. Cofield was injured at his work assignment when the dryer started spinning causing his "left arm to become entangled" with the bags inside. [Ibid., Exhibit A].
The claim itself was served on April 23, 2018. [Feinberg Affirmation, ¶5].
Defendant now moves, by way of pre-answer motion, to dismiss the claim because the NI served does not set forth a specific date nor the location of the incident, and thus did not operate to extend the time within which a claim could be served and filed to within 2 years of its accrual on December 27, 2016. Court of Claims Act §10(3).
As a more substantive basis for dismissal, defendant also provides an affidavit by Correction Officer Clarence Best, who indicates that he was assigned to the Sing Sing laundry room for the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m shift on December 27, 2016, and that inmates only have access to the laundry room during those hours. [Feinberg Affirmation, Exhibit C]. Officer Best writes that during his shift on that day he did not observe or become aware of any inmate suffering an injury because of a dryer malfunction. Additionally, he reviewed the log book entries pertaining to the laundry room for December 27, 2016, and found no entries concerning an inmate injury or an equipment malfunction. He asserts that had such an incident occurred, it would have been logged.
No opposition has been filed.
Court of Claims Act §11(b) requires that the NI "...state the time when and place where such claim arose, [and] the nature of same...." The purpose of the NI is to put the State on notice of potential suit against it, so that it may investigate the claim and infer a theory of liability. It also acts to extend the period within which a claim must be served and filed, provided it has been properly served and contains the required information.
"While Court of Claims Act § 11(b) does not require 'absolute exactness', it requires a statement made with 'sufficient definiteness to enable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances. The statement must be specific enough so as not to mislead, deceive or prejudice the rights of the State. In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required' (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 ...(balance of citation omitted)." Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 (2d Dept 1998).
The NI served here does not state the time when the claim arose, nor can the time be reasonably inferred from what else is alleged in the NI. As such, the Court finds that the timely served NI does not comply with the substantive requirements of Court of Claims Act §11(b), did not extend the time within which the claim could be served and filed, and thus the claim served and filed herein is untimely served more than 90 days after it accrued.
Although defendant also argues that the NI "fails to allege the address of this laundry room and does not even mention if it was at a correctional facility," [Memorandum of Law, Page 4], it can, nonetheless, be reasonably inferred that the location of the accident is a laundry room at Sing Sing. Indeed Correction Officer Best's statement appears to confirm that there is no confusion as to the location of a laundry room within Sing Sing. --------
Additionally, the factual underpinning of Mr. Cofield's claim is belied by the affidavit by someone with knowledge submitted on the motion indicating that inmates are only allowed a limited period in the laundry room, that the time of the accident alleged does not include that limited period, and that no accident of the type described occurred on December 27, 2016 in any event. As no opposition has been filed, no issue of fact is raised.
Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby granted, and Claim No. 131182 is in all respects dismissed.
January 22, 2019
Albany, New York
RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims