Opinion
# 2015-009-008 Claim No. 116267 Motion No. M-85734
03-17-2015
LAURIE K. GARLAND v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COTE´ & VAN DYKE, LLP BY: Joanne Van Dyke, Esq., Of Counsel. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Joseph D. Callery, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel.
Synopsis
The Court denied claimant's application to vacate a previously signed Stipulation of Discontinuance.
Case information
UID: | 2015-009-008 |
Claimant(s): | LAURIE K. GARLAND |
Claimant short name: | GARLAND |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court. |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 116267 |
Motion number(s): | M-85734 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. |
Claimant's attorney: | COTE´ & VAN DYKE, LLP BY: Joanne Van Dyke, Esq., Of Counsel. |
Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Joseph D. Callery, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel. |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 17, 2015 |
City: | Syracuse |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant has brought this motion requesting that this Court vacate a previously signed Stipulation of Discontinuance, and reinstate her claim (claim No. 116267).
The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion; Affidavit of Joanne Van Dyke, Esq.; with Exhibits 1, 2
Affidavit of Laurie K. Garland 3
Affirmation in Opposition 4
As set forth in the moving papers, claimant alleges that after suffering a fall at her home, she went to Upstate University Hospital (Upstate) in Syracuse, where x-rays were taken on October 7, 2008. Claimant alleges that medical personnel at Upstate misread those x-rays, and failed to identify a fracture of her T3 vertebrae.
On January 2, 2009, claimant filed her claim with the Clerk of the Court of Claims, which was assigned claim No. 116267. Defendant's attorney, in his Affirmation in Opposition, acknowledges that the claim was served upon the Attorney General on or about January 2, 2009. An Answer was then served on the claimant and filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims on January 20, 2009. Subsequently, the Court was presented with a Stipulation of Discontinuance (see Exhibit D to Items 1, 2) signed by an Assistant Attorney General, as attorney for the defendant State of New York, and by Laurie K. Garland, the claimant who at the time was proceeding pro se.
The Stipulation of Discontinuance provided that the claim, previously served and filed by claimant, was "intended to be a Notice of Intention to File a Claim and not a Claim." The parties further agreed that the Court could take "whatever steps are necessary to remove this matter from their list of Claims." Significantly, the stipulation provided that claimant reserved "those rights she presently has to initiate a Claim against the State of New York in the future." This Stipulation of Discontinuance was so-ordered by the Court on February 9, 2009, and filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims on March 2, 2009.
This Court was unaware of any further activity regarding this matter until the instant motion was served and filed, requesting that the Stipulation of Discontinuance be vacated.
One of the primary purposes of a Notice of Intention to File a Claim is to provide a claimant with additional time in which to evaluate and determine whether a claim should be pursued in the Court of Claims. Assuming that a Notice of Intention to File a Claim is timely and properly served, a claim based upon negligence may then be brought at any time within two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, rather than 90 days from accrual if a Notice of Intention is not utilized (Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]).
In the instant claim, therefore, after "converting" her claim to a Notice of Intention, claimant then had two years from her date of accrual (October 7, 2008) to commence a claim in this Court. Therefore, any such claim had to be served and filed by October 7, 2010. As mentioned above, no such claim was commenced, and now, approximately six years after accrual, claimant seeks to vacate her Stipulation of Discontinuance and reinstate her claim.
The strict enforcement of stipulations "not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to the management of court calendars and integrity of the litigation process" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Accordingly, a party will be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation only in cases of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident (id. at 230, citation omitted).
In this particular matter, claimant seeks to reinstitute her claim approximately six years after it accrued, and approximately five and one-half years after the Stipulation of Discontinuance had been signed, "So Ordered," and filed. The Court finds that due to this significant passage of time, defendant would be severely prejudiced should it have to defend this claim. The Court further finds, as outlined above, that claimant, in executing the Stipulation of Discontinuance, reserved to herself ample time (approximately one and one-half years) to decide whether to pursue a claim against the State in this Court, and that she obviously did not take any such action during that time. The Court has found no showing of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident that would justify vacating the Stipulation of Discontinuance and reinstating the claim at this late date.
Accordingly, although the Court is sympathetic to the suffering which claimant continues to endure, this Court believes it would be an improvident exercise of discretion to vacate the Stipulation of Discontinuance previously entered into by the parties and "So Ordered" by this Court.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED, that motion No. M-85734 is hereby DENIED.
March 17, 2015
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims