Mani v State of New York
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 1, 2015
Court of Claims
Dr. V. John Mani, M.D., Claimant,
against
State of New York
[FN1], Defendant.
124410
For Claimant:
Cahill & Cahill, P.C.
By: James H. Cahill, Jr., and Bret Cahn, Esqs.
For Defendant:
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG
Alan C. Marin, J.
Dr. V. John Mani moves here for summary judgment in his claim against the State of New York for violating its contractual obligation to reimburse him for expenses that he incurred as a clinical associate professor at the State University's Downstate Medical Center.
Dr. Mani and Downstate Medical Center, by an April 15, 2011 letter and memorandum of agreement, contracted for the doctor to receive a one-year temporary appointment as a clinical associate professor in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery/Rehabilitation. That appointment began on or about May 1 of that year with SUNY Downstate's acquisition of Long Island College Hospital (LICH), with which Dr. Mani was apparently affiliated until May 1, 2011.[FN2] Dr. Mani's one-year appointment was extended another 18 months to November 1, 2013.
Dr. Mani had been reimbursed in December of 2011 for $50,587.48; his claim is for expenses incurred in 2012 and 2013 (as well as for two items from December 21 and 29 in 2011). Claimant has submitted a three-page list of his un-reimbursed expenditures by date, check number [FN3] and payee with a total due of $77,125.57. These expenses include salary for his employees, phone/internet connection and rental or fees for an x-ray machine.
Dr. Mani's claim and motion are based upon section 4.7 of the memorandum of agreement, which is entitled, "Reimbursement of Other Expenses," and provides that Dr. Mani shall be reimbursed for "all other reasonable and approved expenses incurred on behalf of SUNY Downstate, in accordance with [its] general policy . . ." (cl Aff Sup, exh C).
Defendant State of New York opposes Dr. Mani's motion for summary judgment and cross-moves to dismiss the claim as untimely. Sections 10.4 and 11(a)(i) of the Court of Claims Act require that a claim for breach of contract be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on the Attorney General within six months from accrual. The claim was filed and served on May 22, 2014 - - six months from December 22, 2013.
Exhibit D to claimant's papers is a July 19, 2013 letter written by Dr. Mani's lawyer to SUNY Downstate requesting payment for expenses to date. Defendant therefore maintains that such was the date of accrual and also quotes paragraph 5 of the claim, which sought interest from "the date of the first demand for payment on July 19, 2013."
Claimant in his opposition to defendant's cross motion points out that he continued to work until November 1, 2013. In fact, the last date of expenses in the attachment to counsel's letter was July 1, 2013 and the total expenses through that date were $68,645.19. The motion for summary judgment, dated May 14, 2014, with the aforementioned $77,125.57 total, included a final expense for x-ray service paid on October 12, 2013.
In any event, the date of accrual in a contract case tends to be less precise than it is, for example, in a case arising from two vehicles colliding at an intersection. But clearly, the six-month limitation period has not run on all of Dr. Mani's claimed expenses, and that leaves aside, as may have been done for calendar year 2011, that it can be shown that the custom and practice was to pay reimbursement on an annual basis (or other periodic basis). Inasmuch as defendant sought to dismiss the claim in its entirety, its cross motion should be denied.
Claimant's motion for summary judgment should be denied for the same reason as defendant's cross motion. Further, the contractual standard as to what was "reasonable and [*2]approved" could become an issue, although defendant has not raised whether there was compliance with the terms of section 4.7. Moreover, that SUNY Downstate reimbursed Dr. Mani in 2011 for $50,587.48 implies that the meaning of "reasonable and approved" had not been subject to disagreement.
Claimant may wish to move for permission to a file a late claim under section 10 (6) of the Court of Claims Act. In addition, the Court notes that it has not had the benefit of a conference in this matter.
* * *
In view of the foregoing and having reviewed the submission of the parties,[FN4] IT IS ORDERED that motion No. M-85238 and cross motion No. CM-85354 are denied.
New York, New York
September 1, 2015
ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims Footnotes
Footnote 1:The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the sole proper defendant.
Footnote 2:The letter agreement provides that "SUNY DMC will carry over the vacation, sick and holiday leave accruals available to you as reported on the LICH books at the time of SUNY DMC's official acquisition of LICH" (cl Aff Sup, exh B, p 2).
Footnote 3:Three of the nearly 100 charges were paid by credit card (cl Aff Sup, exh A, p 2).
Footnote 4:The following were reviewed: from claimant - - a Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support of Claim (with exhibits A through F), and an Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion; from defendant - - a Notice of Cross-Motion, and an Affirmation in Support of Cross-Motion and in Opposition to Claimant's Motion (with exhibit A).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
