Claimant's motion for the assignment of counsel was denied.
|Claimant(s):||MOHAMMED SAYEED MAHMOOD|
|Claimant short name:||MAHMOOD|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Mohammed Sayeed Mahmood, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||No Appearance|
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||July 2, 2020|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant, proceeding pro se, moves for the assignment of counsel.
This is claimant's second motion for the assignment of counsel. The first motion was denied on the grounds claimant failed to demonstrate that the County Attorney was served with a copy of the motion as required by CPLR 1101 (c) and, also, because this is not the type of case for which the assignment of counsel is appropriate. The instant motion must be denied for the same reasons. The motion is procedurally defective as there is no affidavit of service indicating that it was served on the County Attorney as required by CPLR 1101 (c). In addition, this is not a proper case for the discretionary assignment of counsel under CPLR 1102 (see Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433  [a proper case for the assignment of counsel is one in which a claimant has suffered a grievous forfeiture or loss of a fundamental right implicating his or her liberty interests]; see also DeLeon v State of New York, 52 AD3d 1282 [4th Dept 2008]; Planck v County of Schenectady, 51 AD3d 1283 [3d Dept 2008]; Wills v City of Troy, 258 AD2d 849 [3d Dept 1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1000 ). The instant action seeking money damages for various unspecified forms of physical and mental harassment fails to implicate claimant's fundamental rights so as to warrant the assignment of counsel.
Based on the foregoing, the claimant's motion is denied.
July 2, 2020
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims