Cadore v State of New York
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cadore v State of New York 2021 NY Slip Op 33672(U) January 15, 2021 Court of Claims Docket Number: Claim No. 129681 Judge: Richard E. Sise Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED 02/1 7/202 1 STATE OF NEW YORK :SY COl..1',T OFC L-\J:\IS ALil.-\:S")·. ~y COURT OF CLAIMS JOHN D. CADORE, Claimant, DECISION AND ORDER -vTHE STATE OF NEW YORK, Cla im No. Motion No . 12968 1 M-96230 Defendant. BEFORE : HON. RICHARD E. SISE Acting Presiding Judge of the Court of Clai ms APPEARANCES: For Claimant: JOHN D. CADORE, PRO SE For Defendant: HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Douglas H. Squire, Esq . Assistant Attorney General The following papers were read on Claimant's motion to reargue and rene\>.· a prior decision of Lhe court dismissing the claim: 1. ~otice oL\foticn d2.ted . ·cvember 27 . 2020 ; 2. Affidavit of John D. Cadore dated November 27, 2020 in support of the motion to renew; 3. Affidavit of John D. Cadore dated ~ovember 27, 2020 in support of the motion to reargue; 4. Exhibits 1-7 attached to the November 27, 2020 affi davits of John D . Cadore; 5. Affirmation ofDoug!a H. Squire affirmed December 3 I, 2020 with Exhibits A-B annexed. filed papers: Claim, Answer Claimant, an attorney, has moved to reargue and renew a decision of the court dismissing the action on the ground that the claim was not timely fi led (Cadore v State of New York, Claim [* 1] Claim No. 129681, Motion No. M-96230 Page 2 \;o. 12968 I, :d-95448, Cou:-t of Claims, September 23, 2020, Sise, A.P.J.). The claim alleges causes of aclion fo:· defamation and breach of contraci. A '"motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and is properly granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts and/or the law or mistakenly atTived at its earlier deci:;ion "' (Loris v S & W Realty C01p., 16 AD3d 729, 730 [3d Dept 2005] quoting, Peak v J\iorthway Travel Trailers Inc., 260 AD2d 840, 842 [3d Dept 1999]) . In support of the motion to reargue claimant conrends that the court inconec:ly decided that the claim was untimely because the actions Df defendant, Y,hich u:iderlie the claim, constitute a cominuous course of conduct and because the single publication rule should not be applied here. The same arguments were made in opposing th~ motion to dismiss and were rejected for reasons made clear in the prior decision. A motion to rcargue i~ no7 d~s:g:1cd LO a:fotd an unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted (Mayer v Natl. Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865 [3d Dept 1993]). As claimant has not satisfied the standard for reargurnem. the motion should be denied. A motion to r::::ne\\ is based upon m:wly discovered material facts or e\·idcnce v-:hich existed at the time the prior motion was made, bm were unknown to the party seeking renew·al. together \\'ith a valid excuse as to why the new information was not previously submitted (CPLR 2221 [e]; Carota v Wu, 284 AD2d 614. 617 [3d Dept 2001 ]). The only new evidence offered here, which bears on the question of the timeliness of the claim, is a copy of a document served on the Anomey General in January 2017 which claimant maintains constitutes a notice of intention to file a claim. Although it is questionable as to \Vhether the document satisfies the [* 2] Claim No. 12968 1, Moti on No. M-96230 Page 3 requirernen1s of a notice of imentior: because it does not state the time when and place where the claim arose, the items of damage or the total sum claimed (Court of Claims Act§ 11 [b }), the c.,~istence of the document was known to claimant at the time the prior motion was made aed therefore, will not support a motion to renew. Moreover, even if the document qualified as a notice of imentio1:, i;: \\ ould not have the effect of rendering the claim timely. As noted in the prio:· decis io!1, ti,e ::,os: :·ecer:: dat" for any event alleged in the claim is .\'1arch 14, 2016 and, because the date of accrual must be con\'eyed in the daim (Court of Claims Act§ 11 [b ]), :\farch 14, 2016 sets the outside date for the accrual of any possible claim. For a notice of intention to extend the time for serving and filing a claim, the notice of intention must be served, as is relevant here, within 90 days of accrual, for intentional torts such as defamation (Court of Claims A:::t § 10 [3 -b}), or six mon,hs of accrual, for breach of contract claims (Court of Claims Act § l 0 [4]). The March 14, 2016 date of accrual, however, is more than six months prior to January 2017 when the asse1ied r_otice of intention \\ a:- se:\·ed. I.i:asmuch as the document ,vas not ser,ed \\"ithin any relevant time period, if detem1ined to constitute a notice of intention, it would nOl extend the time for filing the claim so as to render it timely (Court of Claims Act§ 10 [3-b ], [4 ]). Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the motion is denied. [* 3] Claim No. 129681, Motion No. M-96230 Albany, New York January 15, 2021 Page 4 - -, --=-c~ ~~- ) RICHARD E. SISE Ading Presiding Judge of the Court of Claims [* 4]
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.
