Mani v Suny Downstate Med. Ctr.
Annotate this CaseDecided on March 24, 2016
Court of Claims
Dr. V. John Mani, M.D., Claimant,
against
Suny Downstate Medical Center, Defendant.
M-87938
For Claimant:
Cahill & Cahill, P.C.
By: Bret Cahn, Esq.
For Defendant:
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Ellen S. Mendelson, AAG
Alan C. Marin, J.
V. John Mani, M.D. has a claim against the State for its failure to reimburse him for expenses he incurred beginning on May 1, 2011 and lasting about two and a half years for his service as a clinical associate professor at the State University's Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn.
This Court, by Decision and Order dated September 1, 2015, denied Dr. Mani's motion for summary judgement and further, denied the State's cross motion to dismiss the claim. The Order recited that Dr. Mani was seeking some $77,000 in un-reimbursed expenses, and that he had received nearly $51,000 in reimbursement. Dr. Mani here brings a motion for permission to file a late claim under Section 10 (6) of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"), which is opposed by the defendant State of New York.
In deciding a late claim application under section 10 (6) of the Act, six factors must be [*2]considered, although the presence or absence of any one is not decisive:[FN1] whether (1) defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; (2) defendant had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; (3) defendant was substantially prejudiced; (4) the delay was excusable; (5) claimant has any other available remedy; and (6) the claim appears to be meritorious.
The factors of notice, opportunity to investigate and prejudice are closely related and can be considered together.[FN2] The defendant contends that it is "highly prejudiced" by the lateness of the claim and will be unable to properly investigate it because "the individual familiar with, and responsible for, approving these alleged expenses, that date back to 2012,[FN3] is no longer employed by defendant" (paragraph 6 of defendant's Affirmation in Opposition).
As this Court noted in its prior Order, claimant had a contract with Downstate Medical Center implemented by an April 15, 2011 letter and memorandum of agreement, of which section 4.7 covered the reimbursement of "reasonable and approved expenses" (see also exhibit A of claimant's Affirmation in Support). As distinguished from, for example, a personal injury caused by a transitory condition, this case has a significant amount of documented information. Exhibit F to claimant's Affirmation of Support separately lists nearly 100 un-reimbursed expenditures by date, amount and check number (except for three that were charged to an American Express account).
Government is presumed to operate continuously across changes in staffing and administrations. See generally on the issue, Chief Judge Cooke's discussion in Economico v Vil. of Pelham, 50 NY2d 120, 126 (1980). In addition, the evidentiary doctrine on business records relies upon records that are regularly maintained in the course of that business or entity, and not on the knowledge of any particular employee. The Court concludes that defendant has not been prejudiced by the passage of time and has a fair opportunity to investigate the case (and had sufficient notice thereof).
The State asserts that Dr. Mani does not have a valid excuse for filing an untimely claim. Section 10 (4) of the Act requires that a claim for breach of contract be served and filed within six months of accrual, which defendant regards as having occurred in 2012 (paragraph 5 of defendant's Affirmation in Opposition). Typically, a request for a late claim presumes that the claim did not satisfy the 90-day or six-month limitations period contained in sections 10 (3) and 10 (4); the Court's September 1, 2015 Order touches upon the complexity of determining an accrual date in a breach-of-contract claim. With that said, the classic instance of a valid excuse involves an individual claimant who is too ill to pursue the action for some period of time (Goldstein v State of New York, 75 AD2d 613 [2d Dept 1980]).
On the next factor, whether there is an alternative remedy, defendant does not challenge that this suit is Dr. Mani's only avenue for redress, but it does so on the remaining factor - - whether the claim has the appearance on merit. The First Department has stated: "To be meritorious, a claim must not be patently groundless, frivolous or legally defective, and the record as a whole must give reasonable cause to believe that a valid cause of action exists (citation omitted)" (Sands v State of New York, 49 AD3d 444 [2008]).
This Court finds that the Sands standard has been met - - there is reasonable cause to believe that Dr. V. John Mani has a valid cause of action. Such would cover the earliest claimed un-reimbursed expense, from December 21, 2011 (see footnote 3), given that the six-year statute of limitations period applies.
* * *
In view of the foregoing, and having considered the submissions of the parties,[FN4] IT IS ORDERED that motion No. M-87938 is granted. Within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, claimant shall serve and file a verified claim in compliance with this Decision and Order and with the Court of Claims Act, including the payment of a filing fee in accordance with section 11-a thereof.
New York, New York
March 24, 2016
ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims Footnotes
Footnote 1:See Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys. Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 55 NY2d 979 (1982); Scarver v State of New York, 233 AD2d 858 (4th Dept 1996).
Footnote 2:Brewer v State of New York, 176 Misc 2d 337 (Ct Cl 1998).
Footnote 3:The earliest item for which claimant is requesting reimbursement is from December 21, 2011 (exhibit F of claimant's Affirmation in Support).
Footnote 4:The following were reviewed: from claimant - - a Notice of Motion, an Affirmation in Support of Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim (with exhibits A through G); from defendant - - an Affirmation in Opposition.
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.
