Source: http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/2002-005-546.html
Timestamp: 2018-06-23 04:30:16
Document Index: 274411269

Matched Legal Cases: ['§10', '§10', '§10', '§10', '§ 10', '§10']

CHRISTIE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NONE
CHRISTIE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-005-546, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-65565
Claimant's motion for an order treating his Notice of Intention as a claim is denied, as is his request to proceed under a pseudonym.
2002-005-546
M-65565
Mark J. Christie,Pro Se
On September 18, 2002, the following papers were read on motion by Claimant for an order treating his Notice of Intention as a claim:
Notice of Motion (Application) and Exhibits Annexed
Claimant's response and Exhibit Annexed
Claimant's Affidavit to seal all documents and proceed under a pseudonym
Claimant seeks permission to treat his Notice of Intention to file a claim as a claim pursuant to §§10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act. He alleges that a Notice of Intention was timely served and filed,[1] and appends a copy of a Notice of Intention which alleges an incident occurring at Auburn Correctional Facility (Auburn) on March 15, 2001, in which he contends that he was assaulted by fellow inmates and did not receive medical attention for his injuries until March 16, 2001. He also alleges that he was harassed and assaulted by various correction officers through March 31, 2001, at which time he was transferred to Shawangunk Correctional Facility. He alleges negligence in the failure to have diagnosed rib fractures on March 16, later diagnosed on or about April 6, 2001.
The Notice of Intention notes his intention to bring a claim for his injuries from the three inmates and for insufficient medical treatment from March 16 to March 31, 2001, as well as injuries from handcuffs sustained on March 16, 2001, for "sadistic and brutal treatment" received from Auburn by four correction officers on March 21, 2001, and for damages because he only had one shower in 14 days while at Auburn.
Claimant does not offer any reason why he wishes to treat his Notice of Intention as a claim, and there is no affidavit in support of his application. His moving papers, other than his motion to proceed as a poor person and ancillary papers thereto, to wit, for a fee reduction (the papers for which have been retained at the Clerk's office pending the determination of this motion) consists of a copy of his Notice of Intention and his Application for Permission to treat his Notice of Intention as a claim, in which he asserts that the Defendant will not be prejudiced because the date to hear this motion can be set by the Court or the Defendant.
In opposition, the Defendant acknowledges service of the Notice of Intention on June 14, 2001, describing prospective causes of action sounding in battery and negligence. As the Defendant correctly notes, a claim for battery must be commenced within one year of the alleged occurrence (CPLR 215; also see Court of Claims Act §10[3-b]). The Defendant correctly alleges that Claimant had until March 2002 to serve and file his claim for the alleged intentional tort of assault and battery. Claimant's response argues that he did not learn of the extent of his injuries, and thus that his cause of action did not accrue until later, but the exhibit attached to his Response showed the allegedly fractured ribs in a document dated April 19, 2001. Furthermore, his awareness of the said rib fracture was referenced in the Notice of Intention as existing on April 6, 2001. Thus to that extent, Claimant's motion must be and hereby is denied, as any allegations relating to assault and battery had to have been filed within one year of accrual. The instant application was not dated until June 2002, well beyond the one year period, and, as such, is untimely (Court of Claims Act §10[8{a}]).
As to any allegation alleging negligence, again the Defendant correctly notes that Claimant has preserved until March 15 or 16, 2003 his right to serve and file a claim for all negligent acts within 90 days preceding the service of his Notice of Intention on June 14, 2001, which acts were alleged in the said Notice of Intention. Accordingly as to that part of the motion seeking to have allegations of negligence in the Notice of Intention be deemed a claim, the motion is denied as unnecessary.
Claimant alludes to the Court's discretion to permit the late filing of claims (§10[6]). The statute requires that such application, like one seeking permission to treat a Notice of Intention as a claim (§ 10[8]) both must be brought prior to the expiration of the underlying statute of limitations of CPLR article 2. Additionally no proposed claim has been submitted and there has been no discussion of the six statutory factors in §10(6).
Claimant also sought, in conjunction with the instant motion, to "seal all documents and proceed under a pseudonym." The request is related to his contention that many of the exhibits pertain to his medical and mental health records. This request is denied at this time as this motion has been otherwise denied, there is no claim, and there are no medical or mental health records proffered to me. Should Claimant serve and file a claim in which such records are implicated, he could renew his application to seal his medical and mental health records from public view. His application to proceed under a pseudonym is denied as no reason therefore has been articulated.
The motion is denied in its entirety in accordance with the above.
[1] Notices of Intention have not been accepted for filing by the Clerk of the Court since 1995.