In re PETITION O FSYED MUQEEMULLAH SHAH
Case summary
The claimant sought an extension of time to file documents for Crime Victims Compensation benefits, but the court found the crime occurred more than 18 months before filing and the filing deadline could not be extended under the law, so the petition was denied. In a related stipulation, the court rejected a request to substitute the claimant in a prior case, finding the claim was time-barred.
Cases cited: Schroeder v. State (1984), 36 Ill. Ct. Cl. 3; Goodwill v. State (1982), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 303; Schenck v. State (1991), 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 437
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- ROLAND W. BURRIS,Attorney General (JAMES MAHER 111, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- C RIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION Am-application by uictirn’s brotherfor funeral expenses and request to be substituted in cousin’sfuneral expense claim were untimely+ause dismissed. Despite a stipulation between the brother of the decedent and the decedent’s cousin that the brother had reimbursed the cousin for payment of the decedent’s funeral expenses, the Court of Claims denied the brother’s application for funeral expenses on jurisdictional grounds because it was untimely filed more than two years after the crime and there were no applicable exceptions to the filing requirements, and the Court further rejected the brother’s request to be substituted in the cousin’s previously denied claim for funeral expenses, since the motion for substitution was also untimely.
ORDER
PATCHETT, J. This cause coming on to be heard upon the petition [*494] of the applicant for an extension of time to file necessary documents in the submission of application for benefits under the Crime Victims Compensation Act; Based upon the information contained in said petition and by the Crime Victims Compensation Act, we find that the crime in question occurred more than 18 months before the filing of the application, and as the Crime Victims Compensation Act requires filing of notice within six months, which can be extended for one year on good cause, we find that we are unable to extend the filing deadline under the law; Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that said petition be denied.
OHDER
FREDERICK, J
This cause coming on for hearing on the stipulation of the Claimant, Syed M. Shah, and the Respondent, and the Claimant, Shahid Hussain, in cause No. 87-CV-0653, and the Court having reviewed the stipulation, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, Wherefore, the Court finds: 1. That Claimant, Syed M. Shah, is the brother of the decedent. 2. That Claimant, Shahid Hussain, is the cousin of the decedent. 3. That the victim, Syed K. Shah, was murdered on June 18,1986. 4. That Claimant, Shahid Hussam, originally filed his application pursuant to the Crime Victims Compensation Act on December 8,1986.
[*495] 5. The claim of Shahid Hussain was denied by the Court on February 24, 1987, on the grounds that Mr.
Hussain was not a relative of the victim within the meaning of the Act and therefore not eligible for compensation. 6. Claimant, Syed M. Shah, filed his application for
I
the same funeral expenses on August 5,1988. I
I
7. The claim of Syed M. Shah was denied by the I Court on jurisdictional grounds in that the crime occurred more than 18 months prior to the filing of the ,
I
application. 8. That the parties are requesting that Claimant, Syed M. Shah, be substituted for Claimant, Shahid Hussain, in cause No. 87-CV-0653 so that he can recover. It is stipulated that Mr. Hussain has been reimbursed by Mr.
Shah for the funeral costs and Mr. Hussain assigns his rights to Mr. Shah. 9. The Court of Claims is not bound by stipulations.
Schroeder v. State (1984), 36 Ill. Ct. C1. 3; Goodwill 0, State (1982), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 303. 10. Claimant Syed Shah's claim was filed more than
I
two years after the crime and there is before us no evi- l dence of disability or other possible legal exception to the filing requirements. Schenck v. State (1991), 43 Ill. Ct. c1.437. 11. That the parties seek the Court to substitute Mr.
Shah for Mr. Hussain in the case that was denied on February 24,1987. 12. That even liberally construing Claimant Shah's application of August 5 , 1988, as a motion to substitute for Mr. Hussain, such motion was not timely.
[*496] 13. To make an award to Mr. Shah would be to find jurisdiction where the claim is barred.
Therefore, it is ordered: A. That the stipulation of the parties filed March 30, 1990, is rejected.
B. That the cause is dismissed and stricken.