Pro se inmate's motion to suspend the determination of a prior motion was denied.
|Claimant short name:||BLOODYWONE|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Zhordrack Bloodywone, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||August 9, 2019|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
By Decision and Order dated June 28, 2019, the claim was dismissed on the ground it was not served upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i). Claimant now moves for an Order "suspending the execution of [the] motion" and for the appointment of counsel to represent him (claimant's statement in support dated June 7, 2019, p. 2).
First, with respect to claimant's request to suspend determination of the prior motion, in the event claimant required more time to prepare his opposition to the motion he could have simply requested it, but failed to do so. While the present motion was served upon defense counsel on June 13, 2019, before the June 19, 2019 return date of the prior motion, it was not filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Claims until July 5, 2019, subsequent to the date the motion was decided. Consequently, the claimant's present motion was not considered in opposition to or together with defendant's dismissal motion.
Even viewing the present motion as one to reargue, claimant has provided no basis to conclude that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or law (CPLR 2221 [d]). Nor has claimant submitted new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the determination (CPLR 2221 [e]; GMAT Legal Tit. Trust 2014-1 v Wood, 173 AD3d 1533, 1534 [3d Dept 2019]). In fact, in support of his motion, claimant indicates only that he needs more time to summon witnesses "to the facts of the complaint" (claimant's statement in support dated June 7, 2019, p. 2). The motion is not supported by an affidavit and claimant has provided absolutely no reason to believe, contrary to defendant's showing, that the claim was in fact served on the Office of the Attorney General.Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.
August 9, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims