McCabe v. State

• Decision Date: 30 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 46039A,46039A
• Citation: 58 Misc.2d 823,296 N.Y.S.2d 840
• Parties: James McCABE, as parent and natural guardian of James McCabe, an infant, and James J. McCabe, individually, Claimants, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant. Claim
• Court: New York Court of Claims

Page 840

296 N.Y.S.2d 840

58 Misc.2d 823

James McCABE, as parent and natural guardian of James McCabe, an infant, and James J. McCabe individually, Claimants, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant.

Claim No. 46039A.

Court of Claims of New York.

Jan. 30, 1969.

[58 Misc.2d 824] William J. Gray, Albany, by Morris J. Bloomberg, Albany, of counsel, for claimants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., by J. Joseph Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, for the State.

DECISION

HENRY W. LENGYEL, Judge.

This is a motion for permission to file late claims. The motion was initially returnable on December 17, 1968, and after adjournments was heard on January 21, 1969.

The claims herein arose out of an accident which occurred on October 12, 1965, when a structure, allegedly owned by the State of New York, collapsed and allegedly buried the infant claimant in the resulting rubble.

A notice of intention to file a claim, on behalf of the infant and the derivative claim of the parent, was duly filed on the 10th day of January, 1966. However, a notice of claim was not filed within two years of the accrual date of October 12, 1965. See, Section 10(3), Court of Claims Act.

The attorney of record duly filed the notice of intention and then engaged trial counsel to prepare the notice of claim and prosecute these matters through to conclusion. Said trial counsel was not the attorney of counsel in this motion. The excuse for not properly filing a notice of claim was that the original trial counsel had mislaid the file during an office move. Said counsel also had another McCabe case against the State of New York in his office. He stated in his affidavit that he had confused the two claims and did not realize he had not filed the instant McCabe notice of claim. We do not consider that reasonable excuses have been presented for an approximately 14-month delay in the filing of this notice of claim. See, Hall v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 1034, 283 N.Y.S.2d 797; Fenimore v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 626, 280 N.Y.S.2d 95; Travelers Fire Insurance Company v. State of New York, 275 App.Div. 737, 87 N.Y.S.2d 136; Schroeder v. State of New York, 252 App.Div. 16, 297 N.Y.S. 632, affd. 276 N.Y. 627, 12 N.E.2d 609. We do not find that Conti v. State of New York, 277 App.Div. 955, 99 N.Y.S.2d 620, is, on the fact situation presented herein, controlling.

Having determined that a reasonable excuse was not presented sufficient to permit us, in our discretion, to allow these late filings (See, Section 10(5), Court of Claims Act), we must, in the interests of justice, now determine whether there are other legally justifiable reasons which will permit us to grant these claimants their day in court.

We have examined the duly filed notice of intention to ascertain if such could be considered a notice of claim. Section 11 of the Court of Claims Act requires that the claim state: (1) the time and place where such claim arose; (2) the nature of the claim; (3) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and, (4) the total sum claimed. The filed notice of intention specifically complied with items 1 and 2 above and in general language complied with item 3. Item 4 was not set forth in said notice of intention.

It was stated in Harvey Chalmers & Son, Inc. v. State of New York, 271 App.Div. 699, 701, 68 N.Y.S.2d 827, affd. w/o op. 297 N.Y. 690, 77 N.E.2d 8:

'The sole question before us is whether the paper which claimant filed constitutes a claim. The mere fact that it bears the baptismal name of a notice of intention to file a claim is not conclusive. * * *

'The sufficiency of a claim is to be tested by the provisions and purpose of the statute. The object of the statute should be kept in mind and it should not be given a construction that will defeat the ends of justice. * * *

'The purpose of the provision requiring the presentation of a notice of intention to file a claim or the claim itself against the State as a condition precedent to the institution of a suit for damages was not to hamper and harass the claimant but to give the officers of the State prompt notice of the damages or injuries and the surrounding circumstances in order that the matter might be investigated and the State's liability determined.'

Admittedly, in the Chalmers case, the notice of intention complied with the above four requirements of a notice of claim. Whereas, in the instant claims, the total sum claimed was not set forth. However, we do not believe such is a fatal defect to a finding that this notice of intention was actually a notice of claim. In our years on this Court, and in the practice of law prior to those years, we noticed that in many instances any relationship between the amount sued for and practicality could be somewhat illusory. In any event, the total sum claimed can have absolutely no bearing upon the fact of the State's knowledge and investigation or the quality of that investigation. The State was not deceived or misled and its rights have not been prejudiced. It would be abhorrent to our sense of justice to dismiss these claims and not grant these claimants their full day in court. We, therefore, find that the notice of intention to file a claim, which was filed on January 10, 1966, was actually a filing of a notice of claim. The proposed claim attached to the moving papers herein shall be considered an amendment of the claim herein. See, Cardo v. The New York Thruway Authority, Claim No. 43533, Motion M--8777, unreported, dated January 18, 1966; Village of Croton-on-Hudson v. State of New York, 48 Misc.2d 1092, 266 N.Y.S.2d 567; Fraser v. State of New York, 26 Misc.2d 992, 212 N.Y.S.2d 397. An original and 12 copies of the said amended claim shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims and copy served upon the Attorney General within twenty (20) days from the date of the order herein.

If we had not considered the duly filed notice of intention to file a claim as the notice of claim, the claim of parent McCabe would, of course, have been dismissed. However, we would then have been faced with a different situation in respect to the infant McCabe. Under McKinney Const., Article III, § 19 (last sentence), it is provided, in relation to claims against the State, that: '* * * if the claimant shall be under legal disability, the claim may be presented within two years after such disability is removed.' The last sentence of Section 10(5), Court of Claims Act is a verbatim reiteration of the above constitutional provision. Infancy, of course, is a legal disability....