Opinion
# 2014-010-089 Claim No. NONE Motion No. M-85840
02-27-2015
ANDREW J. STANKEVICH v. BEDFORD HILLS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
ANDREW J. STANKEVICH Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Sherine F. Cummings, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's application for leave to serve and file a late claim denied. Claimant has failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant granting his application.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-010-089 |
| Claimant(s): | ANDREW J. STANKEVICH |
| Claimant short name: | STANKEVICH |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | BEDFORD HILLS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | NONE |
| Motion number(s): | M-85840 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Terry Jane Ruderman |
| Claimant's attorney: | ANDREW J. STANKEVICH Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Sherine F. Cummings, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 27, 2015 |
| City: | White Plains |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's application for leave to serve and file a late claim:
Notice of Motion, Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits.................................................1
Notice to Amend Motion, Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits.................................2
Opposition to Amended Motion...............................................................................3
Claimant's Reply and Exhibits.................................................................................4
Claimant seeks leave to serve and file a late claim against Bedford Hills Correctional Facility and New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. It is noted that, previously defendant cross-moved to dismiss Claim No. 124558, which contained the same allegations which are the subject of this application, and the cross-motion was GRANTED by this Court's Decision and Order (Stankevich v State of New York, UID No. 2014-010-088 [Ct Cl, Ruderman, J., Dec. 19, 2014]). Here, it is further noted that movant failed to set forth the allegations in a proposed claim as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (6).
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]).
Unlike a party who has timely commenced a claim, a party seeking to bring 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] ).
The Court has throughly reviewed the 93 paragraphs of claimant's supporting affidavit along with the voluminous exhibits and the amended motion papers and exhibits submitted by claimant. The Court finds that, upon careful consideration all of the factors under Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), claimant has failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant granting his application. Indeed, the Court finds that claimant's allegations are self-serving, unsubstantiated and of questionable merit (see 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]). Significantly, claimant is without legal standing to bring a claim for relief based upon alleged wrongdoing visited upon J.P., another individual with whom claimant has no legally recognizable relationship. Additionally, the allegations of wrongdoing for which claimant seeks relief on his own behalf are not properly venued in this Court because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims (see Erie Blvd. Hydropower, LP v State of New York, 90 AD3d 1292 [3d Dept 2011] [the Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction is nonwaivable]; see also Civil Rights Law §§ 79 [3], 79-a [3] [the State shall not be liable for any expense related to any action or proceeding]; Court of Claims Act § 27 [Court of Claims shall not award attorney's fees to any party]).
Accordingly, claimant's late claim application is DENIED. Additionally, claimant's request that sanctions be imposed against the New York State Assistant Attorney General who opposed this application is unwarranted and is also DENIED.
February 27, 2015
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims