Opinion
# 2017-015-214 Claim No. None Motion No. M-89459 Motion No. M-89648
03-20-2017
JEREMY SANCHEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Jeremy Sanchez, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Motion to file a late claim alleging State was negligent in failing to protect movant from an assault by other inmates was granted. To the extent movant sought to allege a wrongful confinement cause of action, however, the motion was denied because movant failed to establish that the hearing determination was reversed or the potential merit of this cause of action.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-015-214 |
| Claimant(s): | JEREMY SANCHEZ |
| Claimant short name: | SANCHEZ |
| 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-89459, M-89648 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Jeremy Sanchez, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 20, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Movant, proceeding pro se, seeks permission to amend his prior motion to serve and file a late claim (M-89459) and separately moves for permission to file and serve a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) (M-89648).
By Decision and Order dated November 3, 2016, this Court denied movant's prior application for late claim relief, with leave to renew, because it was apparent that not all of the motion papers had been served upon the State. Movant now improperly characterizes motion number M-89459 as one for permission to amend his prior motion for late claim relief and, in a subsequently filed motion, simply seeks permission to file and serve a late claim. Inasmuch as both motions are substantially similar and movant's request to amend his prior motion (M-89459) is unnecessary, the Court will deny motion number M-89459 as unnecessary and proceed to decide the late claim motion pending under motion number M-89648.
Movant is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision who was allegedly assaulted by several inmates who rushed into his unlocked cell (E-5-32) at Great Meadow Correctional Facility on January 25, 2016, stabbing him first in the eye and then several times in various parts of his body. Movant asserts as the basis for his claim that the State was negligent in failing to supervise the E-5 company where the assault occurred and in failing to lock his cell. Movant alleges that as a result of the incident, he is blind in his right eye and suffered nerve damage, scars, a broken arm, torn tendons, headaches and mental pain and anguish. Movant also seeks leave to assert a cause of action for wrongful confinement arising from a hearing determination in which an unspecified term of administrative segregation was imposed. Movant asserts that this determination was premised upon the testimony of certain correctional personnel who falsely testified that movant stated his intention to "get revenge on all [L]atin [K]ings for the loss of his eye & that he would get word out about his desire to get revenge on the [L]atin [K]ings" (proposed claim, Exhibit 1, ¶ 12). Movant does not allege the date his alleged administrative confinement terminated nor does he allege that the administrative hearing determination was reversed or annulled.
The first issue for determination upon a late claim motion is whether the application is timely. Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) requires that a motion to file a late claim be made "before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen of the state would be barred under the provisions of article two of the civil practice law and rules." Inasmuch as the movant seeks recovery for the negligence of the State, the three-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR § 214 applies. The instant motion is therefore timely with respect to the proposed negligence cause of action. Although the date of accrual for the movant's proposed wrongful confinement cause of action has not been alleged, given the date of the incident it is apparent that the instant motion was filed and served within the one-year statute of limitations applicable to citizens of the State (see CPLR 215 [3]).
Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) permits this Court, if the applicable Statute of Limitations set forth in article 2 of the CPLR has not expired, to allow the filing of a late claim upon consideration of the following factors: "whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim or to serve upon the attorney general a notice of intention resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and, whether the claimant has any other available remedy." The statutory factors are not exhaustive nor is any one factor controlling (Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys. Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979, 981 [1982]; Williams v State of New York, 133 AD3d 1357 [4th Dept 2015]; Matter of Gavigan v State of New York, 176 AD2d 1117 [3d Dept 1991]). The most important factor is whether the potential claim has merit, as it would be a futile exercise to permit litigation of a clearly baseless lawsuit (Savino v State of New York, 199 AD2d 254 [2d Dept 1993]). In deciding a late claim motion, the Court has broad discretion which will not be lightly set aside (Ledet v State of New York, 207 AD2d 965 [4th Dept 1994] ).
The excuses advanced by movant for his failure to timely serve and file the claim are the severity of the injuries he sustained in the assault, the period of his hospitalizations, and the fact that he was only 19 years of age and ignorant of the law. Movant states that he was confined to an outside hospital for 12 days and to the prison hospital for an additional two weeks. Movant indicates that he did not have access to the law library or legal assistance during this period. Moreover, movant alleges that he lost both the vision in his right eye and the use of his writing hand. Considering the severity of movant's alleged injuries, the length of his hospitalizations and the significant nature of the injuries alleged, the Court finds movant had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve and file the claim.
The intertwined issues of notice, opportunity to investigate and prejudice to the State will be considered together. Defendant does not dispute that it was aware of the incident, performed an investigation into its occurrence and will suffer no prejudice in the event movant is permitted to file a late claim. These factors weigh in movant's favor.
With respect to the required showing of merit, the claim is sufficiently established if the claimant demonstrates that the proposed claim is not patently groundless, frivolous, or legally defective and there is reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists (Lerner v State of New York, 72 AD3d 406, 407 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc 2d 1 [1977]). With respect to movant's negligence cause of action, the Court finds that movant's allegations that the State was negligent in failing to adequately secure and supervise the E-5 company where the assault occurred are adequate, at this early stage, to demonstrate that the proposed claim is not patently groundless, frivolous, or legally defective and there is reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists.
A different conclusion is reached with respect to the movant's proposed wrongful confinement cause of action. At the very least, movant was required to plead the date the confinement terminated (Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287 [3d Dept 2011]; Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]) and that the administrative hearing determination was reversed or annulled (see Green v State of New York, 90 AD3d 1577 [4th Dept 2011]) based upon a violation of a due process safeguard (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 221 [1988]). Absent a reversal or annulment of the administrative segregation hearing, this Court lacks jurisdiction (Green, 90 AD3d 1577). Moreover, even where there is a reversal or annulment of a hearing determination, movant must still establish that the outcome of the hearing would have been different had there been no violation of a due process safeguard (Bottom v State of New York, 142 AD3d 1314 [4th Dept 2016]; Moustakos v State of New York, 133 AD3d 1268 [4th Dept 2015]). Assuming the truth of the facts alleged here, movant failed to demonstrate that the proposed cause of action for wrongful confinement is not legally defective or that there is any cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists.
As to the final factor to be considered, it appears the only alternative remedy is a lawsuit against the inmate-assailant whose identity is known.
Weighing the totality of factors required for consideration in determining a motion for late claim relief, the Court concludes that leave to file a late claim alleging a cause of action for negligence would be an appropriate exercise of discretion. Late claim relief is denied with respect to movant's proposed cause of action for wrongful confinement as movant failed to establish the potential merit of this cause of action.
Based on the foregoing, movant's application (motion no. M-89648) is granted with respect to his negligence cause of action and otherwise denied. Movant is directed to file and serve his claim in accordance with this Decision and Order and Court of Claims Act § 11 and § 11-a within 45 days of the date this Decision and Order is filed. Motion number M-89459 is denied as unnecessary.
March 20, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court considered the following papers: M-89459
Notice of motion dated October 25, 2016;M-89648
Affidavit of Jeremy Sanchez sworn to October 25, 2016;
Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner dated December 1, 2016.
1. Notice of motion dated November 29, 2016;
2. Affidavit of Jeremy Sanchez sworn to November 29, 2016 with exhibit;
3. Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner dated December 27, 2016;
4. Reply affidavit of Jeremy Sanchez sworn to January 3, 2017 with exhibits.