Opinion
# 2021-040-008 Claim No. 135294 Motion No. M-96028 Motion No. M-96029 Motion No. M-96030 Motion No. M-96037
02-22-2021
YAYA JALLOW v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Yaya Jallow, Pro Se LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Four motions by pro se Claimant all denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-040-008 |
| Claimant(s): | YAYA JALLOW |
| Claimant short name: | JALLOW |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 135294 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96028, M-96029, M-96030, M-96037 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Yaya Jallow, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 22, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's Motion (M-96028) to file an Exhibit packet containing 29 exhibits is denied as moot; Claimant's Motion (M-96037) to file the Exhibit packet containing 29 exhibits, along with the proper Claim number and the name of the assigned judge is denied; Claimant's Motion (M-96029) to amend the Claim is denied; and Claimant's Motion (M-96030) to amend the Claim is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on September 4, 2020, consists of nine pages, more than 30 numbered paragraphs, and references an Exhibit List of 30 numbered documents. It appears that Claimant is asserting that he was discriminated against by various employers in New York City, and did not receive the wages to which he asserts he was entitled. He asserts that he filed complaints with the New York State Department of Labor regarding these incidents and his complaints were ignored or were inadequately and untimely resolved. He asserts that Defendant's employees were negligent, abused their positions, and violated New York statutes.
Defense counsel submitted a letter to the Court regarding the four motions, stating that Defendant takes no position and leaves the motions to the Court's discretion.
By Motion M-96028, Claimant seeks to file an Exhibit packet. The Court denies the Motion as moot, on the basis that Claimant made a subsequent Motion (M-96037) seeking to amend the Exhibit packet by including the Claim Number and the name of the assigned Judge.
CPLR 3025(b) provides that a motion to amend a pleading "shall be accompanied by the proposed amended … pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading." In addition, "[i]f the amendment is meritorious and does not cause prejudice or surprise to the nonmoving party, the determination is a discretionary matter which will not be disturbed absent abuse" (Matter of Seelig, 302 AD2d 721, 723 [3d Dept 2003]; see Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]). With regard to the Motion to Amend the Exhibit packet (M-96037), the Court notes that exhibits that contain facts are best saved for trial when the parties attempt to establish the facts of the case. Assertions set forth in a claim are only allegations and do not establish anything on their own. Claimant does not seek to amend the Claim by adding the exhibits to the Claim. Motion M-96037 to submit an Exhibit packet, at this time, prior to trial, is, therefore, denied.
Claimant's Motion M-96029 to amend the Claim, is to correct several errors in the original Claim. The Court finds that Claimant has failed to comply with CPLR 3025(b). While Claimant included a proposed Amended Claim, he has not clearly shown the changes or additions to be made to the pleading. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what wording Claimant is adding or substituting without additional information from Claimant. Motion M-96029 is denied.
Similarly, Motion M-96030 seeks to amend the Claim to include the Claim Number and the name of the assigned Judge. Again, as the Court is unable to discern what changes are being made to the pleading, if any, in addition to adding the Claim Number and the name of the assigned Judge, Motion M-96030 is denied for the same reasons as Motion M-96029.
Claimant's Motions to amend are denied without prejudice.
February 22, 2021
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read on Claimant's Motions: Papers Numbered
Motion No. M-96028
Motion to File Exhibits & Exhibits Attached 1
Motion No. M-96029
Motion to Amend the Claim & Exhibit Attached 2
Motion No. M-96030
Motion to Amend the Claim & Exhibit Attached 3
Motion No. M-96037
Motion to Amend Exhibits & Exhibits Attached 4 Letter from Assistant Attorney General Anthony Rotondi, Esq. 5 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer