New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
BLOODYWONE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2019-015-181, Claim No. 128722, Motion No. M-94220

Synopsis

Pro se inmate's motion to suspend the determination of a prior motion was denied.

Case information

UID: 2019-015-181
Claimant(s): ZHORDRACK BLOODYWONE
Claimant short name: BLOODYWONE
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 128722
Motion number(s): M-94220
Cross-motion number(s):
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
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

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

Papers Considered:

  1. Statement of Zhordrack Bloodywone dated June 7, 2019 in support of motion;
  2. Affirmation of Glenn C. King, A.A.G. dated July 29, 2019 with Exhibit A.