From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reginer v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 23, 2015
# 2015-029-029 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 23, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-029-029 Claim No. None Motion No. M-86131

03-23-2015

REGINER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

BRIGITTE REGINER, pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL By Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Defendant ignored long settled law by arguing that the lack of a reasonable excuse for claimant's failure to timely file a claim outweighed all other factors in deciding claimant's motion for permission to late file the claim. The court noted that defendant submitted no proof or argument opposing claimant's proof and granted the motion.

Case information


UID:

2015-029-029

Claimant(s):

BRIGITTE REGINER

Claimant short name:

REGINER

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-86131

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

STEPHEN J. MIGNANO

Claimant's attorney:

BRIGITTE REGINER, pro se

Defendant's attorney:

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL By Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

March 23, 2015

City:

White Plains

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant, an inmate at Taconic Correctional Facility, moves for permission to file a late claim based on an injury to her knee occurring on February 3, 2014. Defendant opposes.

Court of Claims Act section 10(6) grants the court the discretion to allow a claimant who has not filed a claim within the applicable limitations period - here, 90 days from accrual - to file a late claim, after consideration of all relevant factors, including whether the delay was excusable, whether defendant had notice of and the timely opportunity to investigate the pertinent allegations, whether defendant would suffer substantial prejudice should the motion be granted, whether the proposed claim appears meritorious and whether claimant has an alternate remedy.

Claimant alleges in her affidavit in support of the motion that she was injured when a table used in her cosmetology course fell and landed on her left knee and that defendant's employees failed to maintain the table in a safe manner. That is the extent to which the facts underlying her claim are discussed in the affidavit. Claimant goes on to state that she was told by someone that she had to exhaust her "administrative remedies" as per the "Prison Litigation Reform Act" and that she filed a grievance and waited until that process was concluded before making the instant application.

As defendant points out in opposition to the motion, claimant is incorrect as to the existence of a requirement that she exhaust an administrative remedy prior to filing a claim in this court. The correctional facility grievance process has nothing to do with a claim in the Court of Claims, and it is never required that a claimant go through the grievance process first. The only instance where a claimant is required to exhaust another remedy prior to filing a claim is in the case of a claim for loss of or damage to property, in which the claim does not accrue until the administrative process is exhausted and the claimant then has 120 days to file a claim. This procedure, and requirement, applies only to property claims. Filing a grievance does not affect the accrual of or extend the time to file a claim. Therefore, claimant's failure to file a claim or serve a notice of intention within that period is not excusable within the meaning of the statute.

As to the balance of the statutory factors, claimant's failure to submit any evidence or probative allegations prevents consideration of what the statute requires the court to consider prior to granting relief. The proposed claim - which contains a more elaborate description than does claimant's affidavit - simply alleges that the table was "unsafe" and that it collapsed, causing injury to her knee and that she received immediate medical treatment. No medical records are attached, nor are any records attached from the grievance process, despite claimant's argument that defendant had notice of the allegations of the proposed claim by virtue of what is in those documents. There is nothing before the court addressing what was allegedly wrong with the table, why it was unsafe, how it fell, what notice defendant had of whatever it was that was allegedly wrong with the table. Claimant merely alleges that the table fell on her knee and, in conclusory fashion, that it was "unsafe," without articulating what it was that made it unsafe. The burden on a putative claimant to demonstrate the existence of a potential meritorious claim is not heavy (Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1), but that burden is not met by these papers since it is not possible to conclude that claimant possesses a potentially meritorious cause of action against the State of New York. The same failure of proof prevents the court from evaluating the notice, opportunity to investigate and lack of prejudice factors since the court must conclude, on these papers, that claimant has not shown that they weigh in her favor.

Accordingly, the motion is denied, without prejudice.

March 23, 2015

White Plains, New York

STEPHEN J. MIGNANO

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers considered:

Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Exhibits

Affirmation in Opposition


Summaries of

Reginer v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 23, 2015
# 2015-029-029 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Reginer v. State

Case Details

Full title:REGINER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Mar 23, 2015

Citations

# 2015-029-029 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 23, 2015)