Opinion
# 2015-041-029 Claim No. 121759 Motion No. M-86175
04-13-2015
AL ELIAS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NONE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to amend answer to add affirmative defense of statute of limitations bar is granted where record shows that the proposed amendment is meritorious and claimant will suffer no prejudice if motion is granted.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-041-029 |
| Claimant(s): | AL ELIAS |
| Claimant short name: | ELIAS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 121759 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86175 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | NONE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 13, 2015 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to amend its answer in this claim alleging that the inmate/claimant was assaulted by correction officers on July 31, 2011 at Clinton Correctional Facility. The claim further states that after the assault defendant's "prison doctor" committed "medical malpractice." The claim was served on defendant on September 20, 2012, more than one year after its accrual.
Defendant seeks to add an affirmative defense alleging that the intentional assault cause of action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 215.
Claimant has not appeared in opposition to the motion.
CPLR 3025 (b) provides for the amendment of a pleading by a party either by stipulation or leave of court. "Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just" (CPLR 3025 [b]). "[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]).
Prejudice to the nonmoving party is shown where that party is "hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position" (Pritzakis v Sbarra, 201 AD2d 797, 799 [3d Dept 1994]; see Smith v Haggerty, 16 AD3d 967, 968 [3d Dept 2005]).
In Carroll v Motola (109 AD3d 629 [2d Dept 2013]), a defendant sought leave to amend his answer to add a statute of limitations defense nearly two years after commencement of the action. The court held that "[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend an answer to assert an affirmative defense should be freely given where the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit" (Carroll, 109 AD3d at 630). Mere delay in moving to amend an answer to assert a statute of limitations defense is insufficient to warrant denial of that motion in the absence of prejudice to claimant (Cahill v Lat, 39 AD3d 1013, 1014 [3d Dept 2007]).
Defendant asserts that there has not been any disclosure proceedings conducted between the parties and, consequently, claimant will suffer no prejudice if leave to amend the answer is granted.
Defendant has made a sufficient showing that the proposed amendment is meritorious and that claimant has neither been "hindered in the preparation of [his] case . . . [nor] prevented from taking some measure in support of [his] position" (Pritzakis, 201 AD2d at 799).
Defendant's motion for leave to serve and file an amended answer containing an affirmative defense asserting the applicable statute of limitations as a bar to recovery is granted.
Defendant is directed to serve and file its amended answer within forty-five (45) days of the filing of this Decision and Order.
April 13, 2015
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice for Leave to Amend Answer, filed January 28, 2015;
2. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, dated January 27, 2015, and attached exhibits.