New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
MATTHEWS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-054-089, Claim No. 127039, Motion No. M-92564

Synopsis

Claimant;'s request for a change in venue denied, did not meet his burden of establishing that there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had at the correctional facility of accrual of the claim.

Case information

UID: 2018-054-089
Claimant(s): HASHIM MATTHEWS
Claimant short name: MATTHEWS
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 127039
Motion number(s): M-92564
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: HASHIM MATTHEWS
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Attorney General for the State of New York
(No Appearance)
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: August 30, 2018
City: White Plains
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on claimant's application for a change of venue:

Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support

Claimant brings this application for a change of venue for his pro se trial which was scheduled to be heard on August 9, 2018 at Eastern NY Correctional Facility via video conference technology. In light of claimant's motion, the trial was adjourned without date. Claimant seeks a change of venue from Eastern NY Correctional Facility to Shawangunk Correctional Facility based upon his assertion that:

"[i]t is believed that an impartial trial cannot be had in the Eastern Correctional because of the malfeasance by security personnel at Eastern Correctional Facility"

(Claimant's Supporting Affidavit, 4).

"To obtain a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (2), a movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed" (Pruitt v Patsalos, 96 AD3d 924 [2d Dept 2012]). The Court finds that claimant's conclusory, self-serving statement, without any other independent evidence to support his application, is insufficient to meet his burden of establishing that there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had and that therefore a change of venue is warranted (CPLR 510 [2]; cf. Rutherford v Patel, 129 AD3d 933 [2d Dept 2015]).

Accordingly, claimant's application for a change of venue is DENIED.

August 30, 2018

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims